Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The allegations against the petitioners are similar in nature. Identical questions arise for determination. Hence these petitions are heard together and disposed by this common order.
4. The petitioner in Crl.M.C N0.6049/2013 is the accused in Crime No.219/2013 of Karipur Police Station registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C and Section 12 (1)(b) of Passports Act.
5. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6052/2013 is also involved in similar offences in Crime No.218/2013 of the same police station.
6. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 29-04-2013 at about 3.35 p.m., the Airport Emigration Authorities restrained the petitioners on suspicion that they were trying to go to Doha with forged visas. They reached the International Airport, Calicut with travel documents. On examination, the officers of the Emigration Department found that the descriptions in the visa possessed by the petitioners were not tallying with the visa seen on the website of the State of Qatar, Ministry of Interior.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of all allegations. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have valid passport and they approached an agent for securing job in Qatar. They were provided with Annexure C (in both cases) visa for a period of one month termed as 'business-visit visa - one visit'. With these documents, they approached the Emigration Authorities for boarding the plain. At that time, the authorities checked up the website of Ministry of Interior, State of Qatar to find that the petitioners were provided with work-business visa (Annexure D in both cases). On feeling suspicion, the petitioners were apprehended. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this must have been a mistake in the office of the Ministry of Interior, State of Qatar and it also could be a mistake in the website maintained by the said department. The petitioners have not done anything to forge or manipulate false records. It is also contended that the prosecution has no case that they had no visa issued by the State of Qatar.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners, when questioned, could not explain the incongruity between Annexure C and Annexure D. I have carefully perused the statements submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karipur Police Station as directed by this Court. I have personally heard the Sub Inspector of Police, Karipur, who appeared in Court as directed by this Court. To a query, the Sub Inspector of Police answered that there is no record to show that petitioners were involved in any other crime earlier and they are not suspected to be carriers of gold or other valuable materials. On a careful perusal of the entire records, I am of the view that the petitioners did not attempt to go to Doha without any travel documents. The documents produced as Annexures C and D show that both of them were issued from the Ministry of Interior, State of Qatar. It may be difficult for the petitioners to explain as to how this mistake crept in the website of the Ministry of Interior of Qatar. In the absence of any other allegation, I find that the prosecution of the petitioners is an unwanted exercise and it should be terminated. Of course, it is made clear that the petitioners, if involved in any other offence, can be proceeded against under the appropriate provision of law.
In the result, petitions are allowed. First Information Report in Crime Nos.218/2013 and 219/2013 of Karipur Police Station for the aforementioned offences registered against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The passports, if any surrendered, shall be returned to the petitioners.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge amk