VERONICA VAS Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 84/2004 and charge sheet filed under Section 419/420/467/471/474 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that on 24th March, 2004 on receiving a secret information, the Petitioner was apprehended from Aurangzeb Road by ASI Imroj Man and a passport bearing number E6424484 in the name of Deena Asthamakar Yoma Desouza was found in her possession.The petitioner had told her name to be Deena to the ASI. Her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Jaywanti and another passport bearing No. A-7889977in the name of Veronica Vas was found in her bag along with its photocopy. After preparation of site plan and registration of case under Section 12 of the Passport Act, the petitioner was interrogated by the police. During her interrogation, the petitioner gave her statement that she had resided in Israel in May 1999 and had now got a job there, but due to strict Visa rules she was not able to get Israeli Visa on her original passport so she took the assistance of an agent to obtain a passport in the name of Deena and was also issued visa for one month on the fake passport. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet under the above mentioned Sections was filed in the Court of ld. CMM, Delhi and the said case is pending trial. The charges were framed on 24th April, 2010 and PW ASI Rajender Prasad has already been examined in the case.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner has pressed for quashing of the charge-sheet by submitting that the Petitioner has been wrongly framed in the case by the agent that she had employed to obtain a visa of Israel after she got a job there. It has been submitted that on the day she was apprehended she had gone to collect her visa and had submitted the passport in her name with the agent, but on reaching there she was handed over the passport in the name of Deena by her agent and she had no role in obtaining or applying the for the fake passport. It has been further submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material in support of the fact that any offence was committed by the petitioner and there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the offence and thus the charge sheet filed against her must be quashed in the interest of justice and spare the Petitioner from unnecessary hardship. Reliance has been placed on Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, 2000 8 SCC 590, U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr., 2009 2 SCC 147 and Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala, 2009 14 SCC 466 etc. to bring home the point that when the complaint or charge sheet filed in the Court does not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, then the FIR and charge sheet ought to be quashed by this Court in the interest of justice.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has submitted that in addition to the statement of the public witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is sufficient evidence on record which points out that a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and hence the prosecution case should not be inadvertently thrown out at its initial stage. It has been further submitted that the perusal of the charge sheet filed in the trial Court discloses a prima facie case being made out against the petitioner and it is not a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.