IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3779 of 2007() ----------------------------------------- CMP.3031/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA (CRIME No. 148/01 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- TAHIR ALI MUNEERA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. ALI BHAI TAHIR, DOOR NO.68, BABU STREET, CHOLINGANELLOOR, CHENGALPETT DISTRICT, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI SRI.RAJIV NAMBEESAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, NEW DELHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J = = = ======== = = = = = Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 4th accused in crime No. 148/01 of Chengamanad Police Station, challenge his implication in the above crime and prays that Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 148/01 of Chengamanad Police Station, may be quashed and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner. 2. The above crime was registered against the petitioner as well as three other accused - who claimed to be Srilankans, who tried to go to Abudhabi by flight No. A1 969 from Cochin International Airport by using bogus passports with the aid of the petitioner herein, who is the 4th accused. According to the police, all the 4 accused were intercepted by the Emigration Officials of Cochin International Airport and handed over to the Chengamanadu police Station. Accordingly, FIR was registered in crime No. 148/01. According to the investigating agency, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 2 419, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act and under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. It is the above crime and further investigation are sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this proceedings. 3. The petitioner in this Criminal M.C. allege that the police has no case that the petitioner had tried to go abroad by using a forged or duplicate passport and her passport is original and genuine one. It is also the case of the petitioner that the allegation is only against the accused 1-3, that they tried to go abroad by using the forged passports. Therefore according to the petitioner no offence is disclosed against her even if the entire allegation are considered to be true. 5. As directed by this court, a statement dated 16.2.2008 is filed by the Detective Inspector, CBCID, Ernakulam. As per the above statement, some more details are given regarding the role of the accused in the above crime. As stated earlier, the Emigration Officials of Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, intercepted and took the accused from the air port and handed over to the Chengamanad Police Station, wherein crime No. 148/01 was registered. On the basis of the Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 3 investigation conducted by the police, it is revealed that the real name and address of A1 to A3 are, (1) Kavitha, aged 25, D/o. Gurusivam, Velvettithurai, Vadamarachi District, Srilanka (2) Premanandi, aged 20, D/o. Yogarathinam, Door No.1, Mullaivaralachi, Mullatheev District, Srilanka (3) Neel, aged 21, S/o. Periyanayakam, Varuthithurai Point Petro, Vadamarachi District, Srilanka. It is also revealed that all the accused disclosed that they have no connection with the address given in the passport except the photographs affixed on it. According to them, they procured the passports from an agent in Trichi but they do not know anything about this agent. Accordingly the Chengamanadu Police produced the 4 accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva on 11.5.2001 and finally accused A1 to A3 were released on bail on 30.6.2001 and thereafter accused A1 to A3 are absconding. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by the CBCID from 9.2.2002. According to the CBCID, A1, Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 4 Kavitha used the missing passport of one Geetha, 446 pocket III DDA Janatha Flat, Pachim Vihar, Delhi by substituting her photograph. Similarly, A2, Premanandini used the missing passport of one Sathi Govind Kattaria, 66- Gandhi Nagar II land, Adayar, Madras, issued from Mumbai passport office, by substituting her photograph. Like, A3 used the missing passport of one Aswani Datta, Model Town Panipet, issued from Chandigargh, by substituting his photograph and it is revealed that by using these forged passports A1 to A3 tried to go to Abudhabi with the aid of A4, the petitioner herein. 6. It is also stated that after the completion of investigation they have prepared a final report on 16.10.2006 and that factual report was sent to ADGP(Crimes), Thiruvananthapuram for obtaining sanction for filing the charge sheet against the accused persons. The statement shows that the factual report was received from ADGP (Crimes) on 15.2.2007 with certain remarks that further investigation should be carried out about the Nationality of A1 to A3. On the basis of the said instructions, investigations have been carried out at Srilankan refugee camp in Selam and Mandapam Camp Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 5 Rameswaram and report from both the camps in charge officers were obtained. According to this report, no such persons is residing there in the given address. To verify this information, the investigating agency have contacted the Srilankan High Commissioner, Delhi. This statement shows that CBCID is continuing the investigation and taking steps to verify the Nationality of the Srilankan National who have arranged A1 to 3 of the above crime. It is also stated that the charge will be filed after completing the investigation of the crime. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even going by the materials of the prosecution such as Annexure A1 report and also going by the statement filed by the CBCID, it is seen that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. The counsel also tried to contend that all allegations are against A1 to 3 and the allegation is to the effect that they by using the forged passport tried to go abroad from Cochin International Airport. 8. I have gone through the available materials including the statement filed by the CBCID. The allegation against the petitioner is that she is the person who gave assistance and aid Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 6 to A1 to A3, whose nationality is yet to be ascertained by the investigating agency. The statement shows that all the details given in the forged passport are not supposed to be correct. The crime was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the Emigration Officials of Cochin International Air Port, who intercepted the accused including the petitioner. The address of the petitioner given in the M.C. is supposed to be a genuine address. At this juncture, there is no materials to show that the petitioner was implicated as one of the accused due to animosity in the above crime along with A1 to A3, whose Nationality is yet to be ascertained. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein gave assistance and with her aid, A1 to A3 tried to go abroad by using forged passport. It is also born out from the report that after obtaining the bail from the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, A1 to A3 were absconding. This court is not in a position to rule out any possibility of their connection and involvement with any foreign group or extremist who are against the integrity of this country. Moreover, the investigation is going on and the investigations against the accused are in progress and a final report will be filed soon which will disclose the further role Crl.M.C. No. 3779 OF 2007 7 of A4 in the commission of the offence. 9. In the light of the above facts and circumstance and the discussions made above, I am of the view that the allegation raised by the petitioner in Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merit. At this stage, especially on the basis of the available materials, it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner. The jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in favour of a person like the petitioner about whom a serious allegation is raised by the investigating agency. In the result, Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-