Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
R. Elangovan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam & Another –Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 23433 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Giritharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kritika Kamal, Govt.Advocate (Crl. Side)
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial evidence to support criminal accusations, especially in cases of impersonation and fraud.
Headnote:
Passports Act, 1967 - Impersonation - Sections 12(1)(b), 468 and 420 IPC - The court quashed the prosecution in C.C. No.76 of 2015 after finding that the accused had not impersonated and obtained a passport, as alleged by the police. The court relied on the evidence of passport issuance and the lack of material to support the suspicion against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was alleged to have impersonated and obtained a passport, but the court found evidence to the contrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had not masqueraded as another person to obtain a passport, based on the evidence presented.
Issues: Impersonation, Passport Fraud, Criminal Prosecution
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the accusation of impersonation and passport fraud.
Final Decision: The prosecution in C.C. No.76 of 2015 was quashed, and the criminal original petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No.76 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District and quash the same.)
1. Though there is no scientific or empirical basis for saying that there will be seven like persons, the facts of this case would make one believe in this myth.
2. For the sake of convenience, the dramatis personae in this case will be referred to by their names.
3. The facts in brief are as under:
3.1 One Rajamohan, S/o Subbian, residing in Soorya Vinayagar Street, Vettaikaraniruppu Village, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District, submitted a passport application on 11.11.2012 in the office of the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy. His passport application was rejected on the ground that a passport bearing no. F 2761396 dated 09.03.2005 has already been issued by the Trichy Passport Office in the name of one Rajamohan. Subsequently, the passport authorities sent a copy of the passport application in respect of Passport No.F 2761396 along with a covering letter dated 05.06.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, to verify the genuineness of the applicant of Passport No.F 2761396.
3.2 Enquiries conducted by the police revealed that one Rajamohan, S/o Subbian, residing in Soorya Vinayagar Street, Vettaikaraniruppu Village, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District, had applied for passport on 03.01.2005 with the photograph of a person who was not Rajamohan (genuine). Therefore, the police conducted further enquiry and found that the photograph in the passport application dated 31.01.2005 is that of one Elangovan, S/o Ramachandran residing at South Jallikulam, Vettaikaraniruppu Village, Nagapattinam District. The police informed this by a special report dated 14.11.2005 to the passport authorities. Further enquiries by police revealed that Elangovan, S/o Ramachandran was not in the village at all and had gone on employment to Qatar. The police appraised these details to Rajamohan (genuine). It may be necessary to state here that Rajamohan (genuine) and Elangovan are from the same village, viz., Vettaikaraniruppu, but, were living in different streets.
3.3 On coming to know that Elangovan had come to the village, Rajamohan (genuine) lodged a complaint to the police, based on which, the police registered a case in Cr. No.92 of 2014 under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Sections 468 and 420 IPC against Elangovan.
3.4 Apprehending arrest, Elangovan filed Crl.O.P. No.27782 of 2014 in this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. He contended that he had already obtained a passport bearing no.F1184417 valid from 26.10.2004 to 25.10.2014 and on the expiry of that passport, he went to the Indian Embassy at Qatar, surrendered that passport and obtained a fresh passport bearing no.L 1447106 valid from 13.03.2014 to 12.03.2015. Thus, the contention of Elangovan was that he had not masqueraded as Rajamohan and obtained the passport bearing no.F 2761396, because, he had no reason to impersonate anyone, inasmuch as he had already obtained a valid passport and was working in Qatar.
3.5 This Court, while granting the relief of anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.10.2014, directed him to surrender the two passports to the police for proper investigation and accordingly, he also surrendered the passports.
3.6 After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report in C.C. No.76 of 2015 in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, for the offences under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act and Sections 468 and 420 IPC against Elangovan, for quashing which, Elangovan is before this Court.
4. Notice was served on Rajamohan (genuine) and none entered appearance for him and hence, his name was printed in the cause list.
5. Heard Mr. S. Giritharan, learned counsel for Elangovan and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
