Important points:• The prosecution has no case that they have obtained sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act before filing charge sheet before this court. For the purpose of the section 15 of the Act, institution of the prosecution takes place only when cognizance is taken place by the court having jurisdiction. It is true that the sanction is not required for registration of the case or investigation of the same. But, before filing charge sheet, it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction from the Central Government and others.• The offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act is not made out and also that the sanction under Section 15 of the Act was not obtained before initiation of prosecution, it has held that the criminal proceedings is a futile exercise. Therefore it has to be terminated in the interest of justice.

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.723/2012 of Palode Police Station registered under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 474 & 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.

4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the charge would not lie against him. The Sub Inspector of Palode Police Station has filed a report to the effect that the petitioner in this case named Shereef applied for passport with Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office and obtained passport numbered as B 0521209 on 06.08.1999 through impersonation by making fake records. For the said purpose, his elder brother Shanavas's 9th standard certificate and brother's name was used. Then he has gone to Gulf countries. During the stay in Gulf country, the accused has renewed the said passport and the passport number has been changed to J 4248114 from B 5221209. Again the petitioner has reported that the petitioner applied for a new passport with Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office.

5. At the time of police verification, the enquiry officer understood that the petitioner has already in possession of another passport, so that he did not recommend the passport application of the petitioner. It is reported that the Passport Officer of Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office compounded the offence by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- on the request of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted another application for getting a new passport as file No.TV 2061508277112. After police verification, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report before the District Police Chief. On receiving the report, the District Police Chief, Palode registered a case in the name of passport applicant. Accordingly, Crime No.723/2012 under Section 419, 465, 468, 471 IPC & Section 10(3)(b) r/w.12(b) of Indian Passport Act was registered. As per the record, the