IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27179 of 2006(I)
1. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.
4. UNION OF INDIA,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/12/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) NO. 27179 OF 2006-I
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2006
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing
Crime No.70/03 registered by the 1st respondent and all
further action taken in pursuance of the said crime.
2. After discussions at the Bar, the following facts
emerge. The petitioner is the holder of a valid passport. He
had gone abroad. He has returned from his place of
employment abroad now. An application for issue of a
passport to the petitioner, but in a different name, has been
submitted to the passport authorities. The said application
contains the photograph of the petitioner; but the name given
is different. That application has allegedly been filed by the
petitioner-1st accused in active association with the 2nd
accused – a travel agent. The prosecution alleges that there
was an attempt by the petitioner, the holder of a genuine
passport, to secure one in a fake name for himself. It is the
allegation that this attempt to secure a forged passport is
made by the 1st and 2nd accused acting in collusion.
W.P.(c) NO. 27179 OF 2006-I -: 2 :-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has absolutely no involvement in the application which
is received by the authorities. He has not applied for any fresh
passport in any fake name. The allegations are false. In these
circumstances, further proceedings in pursuance of the crime
registered may be quashed.
4. I am afraid that the prayer cannot be accepted. Truth
or falsity of the allegations must be ascertained at the first
instance in an investigation by the Investigator and not by this
Court by perusing the documents produced. In proceedings
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., it would be improper for this court
to come to any authentic conclusion on facts. Certainly, the
Investigator will have to proceed further to ascertain whether
accused 1 and 2 in collusion had made an attempt to secure a
passport for the petitioner who already holds a passport, in a
different fake name. That disputed question can be ascertained
only after a proper and thorough investigation. The petitioner’s
assertion that he is innocent may be true. But an opinion on that
aspect cannot be ventured by this Court at this moment.
Consequently, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings cannot
be entertained.
5. The petitioner complains that his original passport in
W.P.(c) NO. 27179 OF 2006-I -: 3 :-
respect of which no offence whatsoever has been committed by
him admittedly is now retained in the custody of the Investigator.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the passport has
already been produced before the learned Magistrate. If the
petitioner wants to seek return of the passport to him, it is for
him, in these circumstances, to approach the learned Magistrate
and make a proper application. I have no reason to assume that
the learned Magistrate would not consider such request, if made,
in accordance with law on merits and expeditiously.
6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge