HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. Rev.P. No.34 of 2025 Sri Ranjit Barua (aged about 44 years), Son of late Kunja Bihari Barua, resident of Shyamnagar, Nuapara, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagaddal, District: North 24 Paragana, West Bengal.

----Petitioner(s)

Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 04.12.2025 Whether fit for reporting : YES HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order (Oral)

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in connection with Case No. S.T.(Type-2) 18 of

2024.

2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner. Also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Lodh first of all drawn the attention of this Court the order dated 16.05.2025 and submitted that before the Learned Trial Court, the accused-petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charge of this case as during investigation, no material could be revealed against him. But, the Learned Trial Court did not consider the submission made by the accused-petitioner and framed charge under Section 120B of IPC and Section 12 of IPP (Entry into India) Act, 1967 (for short, Passport Act, 1967). Referring Section 120B of IPC, Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that from the materials on record, no evidence can be revealed against the accused-petitioner that he made any conspiracy for invoking the provision of the said Section. So, according to Learned Counsel, the charge framed by Learned Court below was misconceived and not supported by any cogent material evidence on record.

4. In respect of another charge framed under Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967, Learned Counsel submitted that on bare perusal of the said provision of Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, it will be transpired that for framing of charge under the said Section, sanction would be required as per Section 15 of the Passport Act 1967. But, here in the case at hand, prosecution could not produce any sanction for prosecuting the accused-petitioner before the Learned Trial Court and as such, the charge cannot be sustained against him.

Referring the provision of Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 12 deals with offences and penalties. Learned Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence on record that the accused-petitioner has committed any offence punishable under Section 3 of the said Act. As such, according to Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, the said charge cannot be sustained in the eye of law against the accused-petitioner. Finally, Learned Counsel urged for discharging the accused-petitioner by setting aside the order dated 16.05.2025 delivered by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur.

5. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner again drawn the attention of this court referring a citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No. 5146 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No.3002/2024, wherein in para Nos. 28 and 29, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“TENDENCY OF FILING CHARGESHEETS AND FRAMING CHARGES IN MATTERS WHERE NO STRONG SUSPICION IS MADE OUT CLOGS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

28. Before parting with this case, this Court would like to emphasise that where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet shou