IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3270 of 2009 Between: Earampamoorthy Veipushita, w/o. Kocharla Venkata Raghava Amarendra, R/o. D.No. 3-35-29/C, 3/18, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur Distric ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep by ther Superintendent of Police, Guntur. 2 The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram L & O Police Station, West Circle, Guntur Town, Guntur. 3 The Commissioner, Foreigners Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 4 The Foreigners Registration Officer, Foreigners Regitration Office, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the FIR No. 174/2008 dated 03-10-2008 registered by the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram L & O Police Station, West Circle, Guntur Town, Guntur District and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to leave India and to visit her ailing grandmother in Toronto, Canada. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be a citizen of Canada and her Canadian Passport No.JX281797 is valid up to 06.08.2013. While so, she states that after obtaining an Indian Visa issued by the Indian Embassy at Toranto which was valid up to 20.12.2007, she came to India on 12.08.2007 and got married to an Indian man, and after her marriage, she could not go back to Canada because of her illness, and overstayed in India for 9 months, by which time, her Indian Visa expired, as a consequence, the 2nd respondent registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.174 of 2008 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for overstaying in India even after the expiry of the visa. Then, she submitted an application to the 3rd respondent for condonation of overstay and extension of her Indian Visa in India, and the 3rd respondent considered her application for condonation of overstay and extended the Visa period up to 9.12.2008 by allowing her to leave India, but only on condition that if she is not involved in any criminal case. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the F.I.R. registered against her and a consequential direction to allow the petitioner to leave India. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments of the writ affidavit and stated that one Shaik Hussain Ahmed, Head Constable, Special Branch, Guntur lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 3.10.2008 alleging that the petitioner overstayed the VISA period, which expired on 20.12.2007. Based on that complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a crime and the investigation is still pending, and as per the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 if any individual overstays the VISA period, necessary action will have to be taken against such individual. Further, the 2nd respondent has stated that the Special Branch Police received a fax message from the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (Foreigner’s Division) which indicates that the petitioner was permitted to go out of the country before 9.12.2008 but that period also expired and because of her overstay, she is liable to be prosecuted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Admittedly, the Indian Visa of the petitioner expired on 20.12.2007 and the petitioner, for the reasons best known to her, overstayed in India for a period of nine months, and as per the stand taken in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner was permitted to leave India before 9.12.2008, by a fax message received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (Foreigner’s Division), she could not utilize the opportunity, and hence, as per the provisions contemplated under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the petitioner is involved in a criminal case and the investigation is in progress. Having regard to the fact that a case is registered against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress, this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R. at this stage, and hence, there are no merits in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to submit the relevant material including the extension of Visa granted by the Home Ministry to the 2nd respondent, who shall look into the matter and file a report or charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th March, 2009 bcj