Musthaq Ahmad vs State Of J&K

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) The petitioner has challenged FIR No32/2016 for offences under Sections 420 RPC and 12 Passports Act.

2) It appears that the respondent Crime Branch received a written complaint from Naheed Mir, wife of the petitioner, that was endorsed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, to the respondent. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage in violation of Civil Service Rules. It was also alleged that the petitioner has managed to get a new passport issued in his favour when his original passport was lying with the complainant. It was further alleged that the petitioner by furnishing false information before the Passport Authority has managed to procure a new passport.

3) The respondent registered a preliminary verification and after conducting preliminary verification, the impugned FIR came to be registered. During the investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C were recorded and the records pertaining to issuance of passport in favour of the petitioner were obtained from the Passport Authority, Srinagar. The original passport bearing No.K-6941025 of the petitioner was seized from the possession of the complainant.

4) During investigation, it was revealed that a matrimonial dispute had taken place between petitioner and the complainant, regarding which a case was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner before the State Women’s Commission in the year 2014. It was further revealed that the petitioner on the pretext of having lost his original passport bearing No.K-6941025, procured a fresh passport bearing No.L5703867 from the Passport Office, Srinagar. The earlier passport was shown to have been lost by the petitioner on 10.09.2013 while travelling from Udhampur to Jammu. The petitioner had lodged a missing report in this regard before Police Station, GRP, Jammu. After completing the formalities for getting fresh passport, the petitioner obtained the same from the Passport Authority on 06.01.2014, on which he travelled to Saudi Arabia. The petitioner at the time of applying for fresh passport had furnished the missing report regarding the passport and an affidavit etc. before the concerned authorities.

5) During the course of investigation, documents pertaining to the case were obtained from the State Women’s Commission. From a perusal of the records made available by the Commission, it surfaced that the petitioner had provided the list of belongings, which, according to him, had been retained by his spouse i.e. the complainant. The said list was furnished by the petitioner to the State Women’s Commission on 16.07.2014. As per the said list, the original passport bearing No.K-6941025 pertaining to the petitioner was lying with complainant. In respect of the same passport, the petitioner had lodged a missing report with Police Station, GRP, Jammu, on 13.09.2013. Thus, according to the investigating agency, the petitioner has furnished false information to the Passport Authority.

6) The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that he has not furnished any false information nor has he suppressed any information at the time of obtaining fresh passport. It is further contended that the petitioner was not having knowledge that his original passport was lying with his wife and that the said fact came to his knowledge only the after the impugned FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, the contents of the impugned FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against him.

7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Case Diary.

8) As already noted, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has furnished false information before the Passport Authorities at the time of applying for fresh passport, inasmuch as he had represented before the Passport Authority that his earlier passport had been lost regarding which he had lodged a missing report and had also filed an affidavit in this regard before the Passport Authority. The investigating agency has collected the material from the State Women’s Commission which shows that the petitioner himself had conveyed to the said Commission that his passport is lying with his wife. Therefore, prima facie, he has knowingly furnished false information before the Passport Authority to the effect that he has lost the earlier passport. Thus, the material on record, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence under Section 12 of the Passports Act.

9) Section 13 of the Passports Act empowers certain designated officers including an officer of the police not below the rank of a Sub Inspector to arrest a person who is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 12 of the said Act without a warrant, meaning thereby that the offence under Section12 of the Passport Act is a non-cognizable offence. Thus, the investigating agency was well within its powers to register the impugned FIR and investigate the case.

10) Having regard to the fact that the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case discloses commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner, as such, no case for quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom is made out. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

11) The Case Diary be returned to the learned counsel for respondent No.1.