Registration of an FIR under a repealed statute for acts post-repeal is legally unsustainable.

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the registration of offence against him vide First Information Report bearing Crime No.311/2025 dated 15.11.2025 at Police Station Chandiya, District - Umaria for the offence punishable under Sections 7 /14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 , on the allegation that he, being the owner of the house, failed to furnish Form-C within the prescribed period in respect of a foreign national.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mohammad Saheb Khan, an American National, came to India to attend the marriage ceremony of his nephew Arman Khan, and initially stayed at Shawn Elizey Hotel, Jabalpur, which is a registered accommodation. After the marriage ceremony, on 12.11.2025 at about 02–03 PM, he visited Ward No.15, Village Chandia, District-Umaria to meet his close relatives including his brother and sisters. On the allegation that the petitioner, being the owner of the said house, did not submit Form-C within 24 hours, a case has been registered against him under Sections 7 /14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has already informed the local police station at the time of arrival of the foreign national at his vicinity and therefore no case for commission of any offence punishable under the eyes of law is made out. He further submitted that the registration of the FIR by the police for the offence under Section 7 /14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is illegal, perverse and contrary to law as there is no time limit of 24 hours for giving information to Police or Administration. He further argued that the petitioner is a private individual, more specifically relative of foreigner visitor, not running any hotel, lodge, guest house, or homestay. Mere ownership of a residential house does not automatically attract the statutory obligation. The foreign national’s visit to the petitioner’s house was purely familial and social.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that with the enactment of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 , the earlier blanket obligation applicable even to private individuals has undergone a conscious legislative change. Reliance is placed upon Section 8(2) and Section 8(3) of the 2025 Act to contend that residential premises of non-commercial nature stand excluded unless a specific direction is issued by the civil authority. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the offence has been registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 , which was no longer in force and repealed by , on the date of the alleged violation, and therefore the very initiation of proceedings under the repealed enactment is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner submitted Form-C on 14.11.2025, during the subsistence of the visit. He further argued that there is no allegation of concealment, misrepresentation, or intent to evade immigration law. At best, the allegation pertains to a technical delay, which does not warrant criminal prosecution.

On the other side counsel for the Union Of India as well as State argued that the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the subordinate legislation are enacted to ensure effective monitoring of foreign nationals in the country. Rule 14 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, the keeper of premises is mandatorily required to submit Form-C within 24 hours. The expression “keeper of premises” is wide enough to include a house owner who allows a foreigner to stay