SHEREEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.723/2012 of Palode Police Station registered under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.10(3)(b), 12(b) of Indian Passport Act, pending as C.C.No.911/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Forest Offence Court, Nedumangad.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner is that in the year 1999, when he was 17 years of age, he obtained a passport by submitting forged document. There is no evidence to prove the alleged case. The petitioner was neither arrested for the alleged use of passport nor the same was recovered from the petitioner. The alleged passport was issued in the name of another person i.e. to one Shanavas Muhammed, S/o. Muhammed Basheer. Annexure-A1 is the certified copy of C.C.No.911/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Forest Offence Court, Nedumangad.

(3.) The allegation is that in the year 1999, when the petitioner was 17 years of age, he used his brother's school certificate and affixed his photograph in the application and had committed impersonation, obtained a passport, further used it and went abroad and obtained a job. The case was registered in the year 2012 when the petitioner was aged 30 years and had applied for passport, i.e. after thirteen years of the alleged offence. There is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner had affixed his photograph or he had obtained the aforesaid alleged passport. As per the records, one Shanavas Muhammed, S/o. Muhammed Basheer, obtained the alleged passport in the year 1999. The alleged offence was registered against the petitioner only on the basis of inference. The prosecution could not establish a case as alleged against the petitioner. The pendancy of the aforesaid alleged case has caused waste of public exchequer and judicial time. Further, it will cause irreparable loss to the family of the petitioner as he is restrained to go abroad and attain a job. Annexure A1 charge is absolute abuse of the process of court. According to the petitioner's counsel, he had not submitted any application during 1999 and had obtained any passport or that the petitioner had used the same, as alleged by the prosecution. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Palode Police Station.