20 # %. 19.07.2010 Present: Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advs. for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Gulati, Adv. for the CBI. +Crl. M.A. No.8797 /2010 (exemption) * Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M.C. No. 2261/201Q 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tCr.P.C.) praying therein that crilninal proceedings arising out of FIR No. RC3(E)/2008 rE'gistered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 471/420 IPC read \vith Section 12 of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 be quashed. 2. Prosecution case is that the Petitioner was involved in the business of illegal transplantation of kidneys and many crin1inal cases had been registered against him in this regard in different parts of country. Petitioner was having a passport issued by the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai. Despite this he made an application with the Regional Passport Office, f Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified . ~ Delhi in the year 2000 for issuance of a new passport without disclosing above facts. However, due to adverse police verification report dated 12th March, 2003 passport was not issued to him. 3. Petitioner again made an application for issuance of a passport on 22nd September, 2003 with the Regional Passport Office, Delhi by furnishing false particulars i.e. changing his name, father's name, date of birth, his place of birth etc . Petitioner also suppressed the information regarding the six previous pending criminal cases against him as also the rejection of his earlier application. In support of his date of birth he submitted an affidavit, purportedly attested by Sh. P.P. Singh Shawney, Advocate. Authenticity of the attestation of the affidavit was verified from the son of Sh. P.P. Singh Shawney, Advocate since the said Advocate had expired when it was revealed that the affidavit was not attested by Sh. P.P. Singh Shawney, Advocate and was a forged document. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 / 4 71 IPC and under Section 12 of the Indian Passport Act, 196 7 and summoned the petitioner. 5. It is well settled that while exerc1s1ng inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question was reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. Enquiry in this regard is to be conducted by the trial court on the basis of material and/ or evidence produced before it. Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a tool by an accused to short-circuit the prosecution and thereby bring about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court relating to cognizable offences · only to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but it should be exercised sparingly. i' Wherever the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided under any enactment or sufficient material is shown J that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive by a private party in order to harass the accused, the High Court can interfere. 6. In the backdrop of the above settled legal position if the present case is examined, no case is made out by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. There is nothing to show that the prosecution has been initiated for malicious reasons. As per charge-sheet, sufficient material has been collected by the CBI to show that inspite of being in possession of one passport issued by the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, sometime in the year 1994, petitioner again made an application for issuance of a passport sometime in the year 2000, which was denied due to adverse police verification report. Thereafter, petitioner again applied for another passport by conceal~ng his real identity and giving incorrect information with regard to his name, father's name, date of birth, place of birth etc. Petitioner was involved in as many as six criminal cases, however he concealed this fact. In support of incorrect information he furnished forged affidavit. Allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet prima facie disclose offences under Sections 420 / 4 71 IPC and 12 of the Indian Passport Act, 1967. Sanction for prosecution as envisaged in Section 15 of the Indian Passport Act has also been taken. 7. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet only disclose an offence under Section 177 IPC for which no cognizance could have been taken without a · complaint being filed by the public authority, in this case being the RPO, before whom the offence was committed and for this reason FIR is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of above discussions, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary pmvers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. It is made clear that any observation made herein, touching upon the merits of the case are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and would not in any way prejudice the petitioner in trial court. 9. Petition is dismissed. M~ A.K. PATHAK, J. July 19, 2010 /rb