CHO NAM GIL Vs. CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A foreigner, involved in two criminal cases in Cr. No. 57 of 2009 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i). IPC and Cr. No. 818 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police. Poonamallee for an offence under Section 420, IPC. has sought for' a writ of Mandamus, directing the Chief Immigration Officer. Chennai. 1st Respondent herein, to grant him permission to travel to Korea.

(2.) One Mr. Sivakumar, who had taken a work order from the Petitioner. Managing Director of "IL Sung Construction Private Limited", Chennai, has filed M.P. No. 2 of 2010, to implead himself as party Respondent in the writ petition, stating that the writ Petitioner had defrauded him. The proposed party has further contended that Cr. No. 818 of 2009, has been registered at his instance on the file of the Inspector of Police, Poonamallee and if the Petitioner is allowed to leave India, his interests would be affected and that therefore, he should be impleaded as party Respondent. Though the lis is between the Petitioner and the official Respondents and that this Court is of the view that there is need to implead the proposed de facto complainant in the criminal Court as party Respondent in this writ petition, for adjudication of the issue. There is no counter-affidavit, opposing the impleading petition, having regard to the submissions of the proposed party, as to who he was allegedly defrauded by the writ Petitioner in the business transaction. M.P. No. 2 of 2010 is ordered and Registry is directed to cany out the necessary amendment in the main writ petition as well as in the miscallaneous petition.

(3.) In support of the relief of mandamus. Mr. R. Prabhakaran, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a foreign national and the Managing Director of the abovesaid Company, registered under the Companies Act. 1956 and presently, staying in India on the basis of a business visa, which was valid upto 10th May, 2010. He further submitted that the abovesaid criminal cases, which have been registered, are purely civil in nature and that there is no fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioner to deceive the de facto complainants. He further submitted that only with a mala fide intention to harass and humiliate the Petitioner and also to extort illegal money, using such coercive method, the de facto complainants have falsely implicated the Petitioner in the above criminal cases, resulting in the issuance of lookout circular by the first Respondent, restraining the Petitioner from leaving India. He submitted that the lookout circular itself is illegal.