Advocates:
['M/S V L AKSHAI SAJIN KUMAR', '', 'VIJAYARAGHAVAN', 'AISHWARYA', 'R NIROSHA', 'K GANESH KUMAR', 'I SADDAM HUSSAIN', 'ADITH NARAYAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'SENIOR CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL SATNDING COUNSEL', 'M/S B RAMU MANOHAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.06.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Crl.O.P.No.19637 of 2021

Samsan.R

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State represented by

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch - II, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Foreigners' Regional

Registration Officer (AFRRO),

Bureau of Immigration Impounding,

Chennai International Airport,

Chennai - 600 027.

... Respondents

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records

in Crime No.40 of 2018 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Central Crime Branch II, Chennai dated 21.03.2018 and to

quash the same as groundless, erroneous in law & facts, and not

maintainable.

For petitioner

: Mr.V.Lakshai Sajin Kumar

For Respondents

: Mr.L.Baskaran (for R.1)

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Mr.B.Rabu Manohar (for R.2)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the

proceedings in Crime No.40 of 2018 on the file of the first

Respondent.

2. This Petition had been filed by the Petitioner/Samsan

who was born in India. He admits that his parents are Sri Lankan

refugees. It is his contention that though he had not suppressed

any facts, a case was registered under the Passport Act against

him. Therefore, he seeks to quash the First Information Report

registered against him by the first Respondent.

3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he

was born and brought up in India and he had produced his School

and College Certificates issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu

and Vels University. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner

invited the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers

where the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur had refused to

remand the Petitioner as Accused in the case on the ground that

offences alleged are not attracted as per the provisions of the

Citizenship Amendment Act and as per the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash

the First Information Report.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the

order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the

case of Shymesh -vs- State of Kerala [Crl.M.C.No.971 of 2013

dated 01.07.2014], wherein the High Court of Kerala had held as

follows:

"10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a

decision rendered by the Federal Court in Basdeo Agarwalla

vs. Emperor (A.I.R (32) 1945 Federal court 16). In that

case, similar provision under the Drugs Control Order, 1943

was interpreted. It was held thus:

" In our view, the absence of sanction prior to

the institution of the Prosecution cannot be regarded

as a mere technical defect. The clause in question was

obviously enacted for the purpose of protecting the

citizen, and in order to give the Provincial

Government in every case a proper opportunity of

considering whether a Prosecution should in the

circumstances of each particular case be instituted at

all. Such a clause, even when it may appear that a

technical offence has been committed, enables the

Provincial Government, if in a particular case it so

thinks fit, to forbid any Prosecution. The sanction is

not intended to be and should not be an automatic

formality and should not so be regarded either by

police or officials. There may well be technical

offences committed against the provisions of such an

Order as that in question, in which the Provincial

Government might have excellent reason for considering

a Prosecution undesirable or inexpedient. But this

decision must be made before a Prosecution is started.

A sanction after a Prosecution has been started is a

very different thing. The fact that a citizen is

brought into Court and charged with an offence may

very seriously affect his reputation and a subsequent

refusal of sanction to a Prosecu