THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30080 of 2014 Dated : 10.10.2014 Between:
Mrs. Ajitha Balan W/o.Mr. Balan Tharrappurath, Aged about 50 yrs, Occu : Housewife, R/o.MIG-872, KPHB Colony Hyderabad, Telangana State .. Petitioner And Ministry of External Affairs rep., by The Secretary, South Block New Delhi-110011 & 3 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30080 of 2014 ORDER :
The husband of the petitioner was convicted by a competent Court in Dubai on 04.09.2014 on the allegation that he has produced forged Demand Drafts as complained by HSBC Bank. Against the said conviction, an appeal is preferred by the husband of the petitioner which appeal is likely to be considered on 14.10.2014.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was falsely implicated for no fault of him. He was an innocent person. He was acting and negotiating for purchase of a star Hotel in Dubai on behalf of several companies situated in India, Singapore and other countries and the Demand Drafts which are alleged to be forged were actually given by the big companies and it is a large scam and he is made scape goat. As the husband of the petitioner has no other avenue ventilating his grievance, a representation was submitted to the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, on 07.09.2014 pointing out several illegalities in the transactions and ultimately implicating the husband of the petitioner. Alleging that no response was given to the representation submitted and that the appeal is scheduled to be taken up on 14.10.2014 and if no decision is taken by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India before 14.10.2014, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
3. In this writ petition, similar prayer is sought as sought in the representation submitted to the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India on 07.09.2014.
4. As admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner’s husband was alleged to have produced fabricated Demand Drafts which were not issued by HSBC. Petitioner alleges that those Demand Drafts were given to her husband by others and he is innocent. The trial Court held him guilty. Appeal against conviction and sentence are pending. How proceedings are conducted by competent Court in UAE cannot be gone into.
5. The Counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner’s husband was falsely implicated. He was acting as front person to negotiate on behalf of certain companies against whom the petitioner makes the allegations that those companies are responsible for committing fraud and obtaining fraudulent Demand Drafts. Therefore, action ought to have taken against those companies and for no fault of him, the husband of the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment for two years.
6. A duty is cast upon the embassy in UAE, High Commissioner in Singapore and other authorities in India to investigate into the allegations as contained in the representation dated 07.09.2014.
7. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no complaint is lodged with any of the investigating agencies by the petitioner alleging committing of fraud by certain other individuals who are stated to be responsible for the state of affairs which ultimately lead to conviction of the husband of the petitioner in the Foreign Court. No such representation was made to any of the respondents in the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner’s husband has become helpless because he was prosecuted in Foreign Court and that as there was no time for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available, this writ petition is instituted.
8. It cannot be expected that Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India would act upon the representation directly submitted to him, and order for an investigation even before a complaint is filed before investigating agency. It is not her case that inspite of filing a complaint investigating agencies are not taking cognizance of crime.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a duty is cast upon the Indian Embassy in UAE to ensure the welfare measures of the person of Indian origin imprisoned in Jails of UAE. However, no specific instances are pointed out in the affidavit nor in the complaint filed before Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, regarding the issue of not initiating welfare measures by the UAE authorities by the Indian Embassy.
10. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take steps to file complaint before appropriate investigating agency or with the concerned police ventilating the grievance of the husband of the petitioner and also a representation to the Ambassador of Indian Embassy in UAE regarding the welfare measures to be taken by the Indian Embassy as long as the husband of the petitioner is put in jail by the UAE authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 10th October, 2014 Rds