IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 404 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.814/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- NAJEEM, S/O. ABDULKHADERKUNJU, BAIJU MANZIL, EZHIPPURAM CHERRI, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. 2. ZEENATH, D/O. AISHA BEEVI, SABIN MANZIL, HOUSE NO. 159, ULIKKOVIL NAGAR, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 404 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Indian Passport Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had applied for and had obtained more than one passport without legal authority. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The petitioner has now come to this court with the prayer that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution against him. 2. What is the reason? The petitioner has no contention before me that a person can legally apply for and obtain more than one passport at the same time or that such act will not amount to any offence. The allegations against him are precisely that. I am unable to agree at the moment and with the available inputs that the said allegation is not justified. I shall Crl.M.C.No. 404 of 2009 2 assume that the petitioner has a case to advance before the learned Magistrate that he is not guilty and that he is not having more than one passport in his name. The petitioner must advance that contention before the learned Magistrate. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find no justification whatsoever in the prayer to quash the prosecution against him. I am carefully avoiding detailed discussion of the materials produced, lest it may adversely affect the interests of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that I find no reason to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to advance all his contentions before the learned Magistrate to claim premature termination of proceedings against him or ultimately to claim acquittal by raising and substantiating all his grounds of challenge. It is submitted that the petitioner is liable to face only allegations for having committed summons offences. Premature termination in that event can be claimed under Section 251 Crl.M.C.No. 404 of 2009 3 r/w. 258 Cr.P.C. as held in the decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State fof Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617). (R. BASANT) Judge tm