J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant, a Thai National, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. II-231 of 2016 dated 20th July 2016 registered with the Waghodiya Police Station, District: Vadodara Rural for the offence punishable under Section 14(b) and (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short, "the Act, 1946").

3. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:

3.1. The applicant herein is a 'Thai National'. He is working with the 'Apollo Tyres' at Limda, Taluka: Waghodiya, District: Vadodara, as a Marking Manager for the ASEAN region. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant herein visited India on 4th January 2016 on a tourist visa and attended a business meeting at the factory of 'Apollo Tyres' situated at Limda, Taluka: Waghodiya, District: Vadodara. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant stayed in a hotel by name 'Lemon Tree' on 4th January 2016, and left for Thailand on 5th January 2016. It is alleged that having come to India on a tourist visa, the applicant could not have attended a business meeting. It amounts to breach of the conditions of visa punishable under Section 14 of the Act, 1946. The police, on receipt of such information, lodged the F.I.R. and when the applicant once again visited India on a business visa, he was arrested on 21st March 2017. The applicant was produced before the learned Magistrate on 22nd March 2017. The police prayed for remand. The Magistrate concerned granted police remand upto 23rd March 2017. On expiry of the period of police remand, the applicant was, once again, produced before the Magistrate concerned. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a bail application under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by the Magistrate on the same day i.e. on 23rd March 2017.

3.2. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a bail application in the Sessions Court at Vadodara. The learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, vide order darted 27th March 2017, granted bail to the applicant subject certain terms and conditions.

4. On account of the prosecution instituted against the applicant, the applicant has not been able to return to his country and in such circumstances, he has come up with this application, praying for quashing of the F.I.R. substantially on the ground that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act, 1946 are spelt out.

5. Mr. S.I. Nanavaty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the manner in which a foreign National has been dealt with by the police speaks a lot about the highhandedness on the part of the police. Mr. Nanavaty submits that the applicant, no doubt, had visited India on a tourist visa, but, that by itself would not have stopped him from attending a meeting at the premises of Apollo Tyres at Limda.

6. Mr. Nanavaty would submit that on the visa, which was issued in favour of the applicant, all that has been stated is that the employment is prohibited. To put it in other words, if any foreign National visits India on a tourist visa, then he is restricted from taking up any employment.

7. Mr. Nanavaty submits that there are no other conditions prescribed in the visa. According to Mr. Nanavaty, a highly qualified Thai National had to remain in jail for almost a period of five days. He was treated by the police as if he is a terrorist.

8. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Nanavaty, the learned senior counsel prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed.

9. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Pathak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeari