A person legally residing in India under valid permits cannot be penalized without explicit restrictions on their movement.

O R D E R Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.101/2021 registered by the Chokli Police Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 14 (A) of the Foreigners Act,1946 (“Act”, in short).

2. The prosecution case, in essence, is as follows: The petitioner is a Pakistani National. She is residing in India on the strength of a permit bearing Registration No. D3(b)177/91C issued by the 2 nd respondent. She is only permitted to reside in Kannur District. However, after 27.08.2006, the petitioner, without permission of the 2^nd respondent, has on several occasions travelled to Kozhikode District and resided there. Accordingly, the accused has committed the above offence.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in the Annexure I FIR are taken on their face value, the same would not constitute the offence against the petitioner. By Annexure III residential permit issued by the 2 respondent, the nd petitioner is permanently residing in India since 15.10.1991. There is no travel restriction imposed on the petitioner. The address shown in the permit is the petitioner’s permanent address. The permit was subsequently extended by the Government of India, as per the Annexure II order dated 17.04.1993, permitting the petitioner to reside in India as a Pakistani National on a year-to-year basis, purely on humanitarian grounds. In light of Annexures II and III order/permit issued in favour of the petitioner, the offence under Section 14 (A) of the Act is not attracted. It is without considering Annexures II and III that the Investigating Officer had registered the crime. Therefore, the Annexure I FIR may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that the petitioner was specifically directed to reside only in Kannur. It is found that the petitioner had on various occasions stayed in Kozhikode District, which is in violation of the permission granted to the petitioner. In the above circumstances the FIR was registered, because the petitioner has violated Section 14 (A) of the Act. This Court may not embark upon a mini- trial and come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not residing within the jurisdiction of Kannur District.

Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. In light of the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to Section 14 (A) of the Act, which reads as follows: “ A Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc.

Whoever--

(a) enters into any area in India, which is restricted for his entry under any order made under this Act, or any direction given in pursuance thereof, without obtaining a permit from the authority, notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, for this purpose or remains in such area beyond the period specified in such permit for his stay; or (b) enters into or stays in any area in India without the valid documents required for such entry or for such stay, as the case may be, under the provisions of any order made under this Act or any direction given in pursuance thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years, but may extend to eight years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but may extend to fifty thousand rupees; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeit