Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jaideep Chakrawarti-respondent no. 4 who is appearing in person, Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 05.02.2020 arising out of investigation of Case Crime No. 0057 of 20020 under sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 120-B IPC and section 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act, 1967, P.S. Bhelopur, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the impugned F.I.R. the allegations are made against petitioner no. 3 namely Deepanjan Saha. So far as the petitioner no. 1 Deepak Saha and petitioner no. 2 Adwitiya Saha, who are father and sister of petitioner no. 3 are concerned, there is no allegation made in the impugned F.I.R. for commission of the offence under the Passport Act or for the offences complained under the IPC. Respondent no. 4 informant has no locus standi to lodge the FIR because there is specific provision in the Passport Act, 1967 that the power to revoke, cancel, refuse or compounding of the passport of any person who has obtained the same in contravention with the provisions contained under the Act is to the authority under the Passport Act. The dispute in the FIR basically relates to the issuance of passport and using the same by petitioner no. 3.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 3 and her husband respondent no. 4 Jaideep Chakawarti and a series of litigation is going on between the petitioners and respondent no. 4 and the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 4 just for harassment of the petitioners with oblique motive. Hence, he submits that the impugned FIR be quashed.
Respondent no. 4 Jaideep Chakrawarti who appeared in person vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR and has submitted that petitioner no. 3-Deepanjan Saha, who is brother of petitioner no. 2 has concealed his criminal antecedents and had obtained a passport, though there were criminal cases going on before the competent court against him. He pointed out that in S.T. No. 140 of 2011 (State Vs. Deepanjan Saha and others) petitioners were facing trial under sections 384, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, though petitioner no. 3 had absconded abroad, an application was moved by him on 28.04.2011, a copy of which, has been annexed at page no. 32 of the petition wherein he tried to demonstrate the conduct of petitioner no. 3 that he is facing trial in the said case and that he mislead the trial court and was seeking adjournment on the ground that he was a student of B.Tech and is not in a position to attend the court on each and every date and prayed that his personal appearance may be dispensed with, though he was in abroad. The respondent no. 4 had brought into notice the conduct of petitioner no. 3 in obtaining passport in his favour by concealing his criminal antecedents to the Ministry of External Affairs and also to other higher authorities.
It was argued by respondent no. 4 that petitioner no.3 by misleading the Passport Authorities had obtained passport by forging documents and concealing material facts. He submitted that petitioner no. 1 Deepak Saha, petitioner no. 2 also colluded with petitioner no. 3 and mislead the police about the whereabouts of petitioner no. 3 in order to save him, though they were aware of the fact that petitioner no. 3 had got the passport prepared by concealing the material facts.
From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R, it is evident that the allegations in regard to commission of offence are made against Deepanjal Saha petitioner no. 3 and the role assigned to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 Deepanjan Saha and Adwitiya Saha is only concealing the fact of commission of offence by Deepanjan Saha which has been alleged to be committed in the FIR.
It is admitted fact that a matrimonial dispute is going on between petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4 which is also subjudice before the competent court. The allegations made in the impugned F.I.R appears to be exaggerated with oblique motive by respondent no. 4 in implicating petitioner no. 1 who is father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 who is his wife in the present case for harassment along with petitioner no. 3 Deepanjan Saha. There appears to be only vague allegations in the impugned FIR against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 that they concealed the fact of obtaining passport by petitioner no. 3 who concealed his criminal antecedents and further they mislead the police about the whereabouts of petitioner no. 3.
From the perusal of the impugned FIR no cognizable offence is disclosed against petitioners no. 1 and 2 but they were arrayed as accused in the present case only on account of matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4 and the petitioner no. 1 being father of petitioner no. 2.
The writ petition on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 is partly allowed and the impugned FIR in respect of petitioners no.1 and 2, namely, Deepak Saha and Adwitiya Saha is hereby quashed.
So far as the allegations levelled against petitioner no. 3 is concerned, from the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it can not be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against petitioner no.3.The provision of Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 is in regard to revocation, cancellation, refusal or compounding of the passport of any person which has been obtained in contravention of the provision of the Act. There is no bar in lodging the F.I.R., by any person in regard to commission of offence which has been alleged in the FIR itself. Hence the quashing of the FIR with respect to Deepanjan Saha is hereby refused.
Accordingly, the writ petition on behalf of petitioner no. 3, namely, Deepanjan Saha, is dismissed.
The party shall file computed generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Subhash Chand, J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 11.1.2021 SKS