Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J
CHINEDU EQU @ REMIJUS EZE @ EZE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6554 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Somanna K.P.
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Sri Shanthi Bhushan
The court quashed criminal proceedings against a foreign national to facilitate deportation, applying the Ministry of Home Affairs' Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) designed to prevent foreign nationals from misusing legal processes to prolong their stay in India.
Headnote:(A) Deportation of Foreign Nationals - Withdrawal of Prosecution - Application of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Where a foreign national seeks deportation and the offenses fall within the criteria of the Model SOP issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to prevent misuse of judicial process for overstaying, the proceedings may be quashed or withdrawn to facilitate deportation. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether pending prosecution against a foreign national can be withdrawn to facilitate their deportation in accordance with the Government's Standard Operating Procedure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of arrest and pending trial for ndps and ipc offenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. request for deportation and government's willingness to follow sop. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal framework for withdrawing prosecution of foreigners to prevent overstay. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. quashment of proceedings to enable deportation under the model sop. (Para 10) |
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C. NO.382/2021 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 8 (c), 22(b), NDPS ACT, SECTIONS 14, 14 (A) (B) OF FOREIGNERS ACT, SECTION 34, 107, 465, 468, 471, 474, 419, 420, 120(B) OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 33RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BENGALURU; II. SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING NO.FRRO/BOI/BLR/MRO/2023-81 DATED 07.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE FOREIGNERS RESTRICTION CENTER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner – accused No.2 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.382/2021 (arising out of Crime No.240/2017), pending before the 33rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 34, 107, 465, 468, 471, 474, 419, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Somanna K.P., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3.
3. On a credible information by the police on 21.06.2017, that a person by name Chinedu Eqe @ Remijus Eze @ Eze along others, residing in a house bearing No.468, Kalkere Main Road, is allegedly using fake passports, SIM cards and selling Cocaine for certain amount and earning illegally, conduct a raid at the said place, arrested the petitioner and others. The police seized 2.5 grams of Cocaine and from electronic devices from the said place. A crime is then registered against the petitioner, who is said to be a Nigerian citizen, in Crime No.240/2017. Investigation ensue and a charge sheet is filed before the concerned Court. The matter is now pending in Spl.C.C.No.382/2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on the score that the intermittent material of Cocaine seized is 2.5 grams, which is less than the commercial quantity and in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Central Government, he be deported to his country – Nigeria, issue a direction to respondent No.3 to deport him to his country as his travel documents – visa and passport are expired and would never come back to the shores of this nation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the averments made in the subject criminal petition and submits that the petitioner is wanting to go back to his country. He would submit that the petitioner is detained in the detention centre at FRRO at present and therefore, seeks a direction to respondent No.3 in this regard.
5. Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3 – the Foreigners Regional Registration Office would submit that steps will be taken in terms of the Model Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’ for short).
6. The Additional State Public Prosecutor representing the respondent – State would also submit that in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure, if prosecution is withdrawn, the petitioner can be consequently remanded to the FRRO.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
