Kerala High Court
Kallikunnu Jishi vs The State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2014
----------------------------------
CRL.M.P.NO. 5951/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI,
DATED 03-01-2014
CRIME NO. 667/2013 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
---------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
KALLIKUNNU JISHI,
D/O.BALAN, KALIMUNNUMAL, ELATTIL P.O.,
KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
---------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI- 31 - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARIPOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE PASS PORT OFFICER,
PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN: 676 505.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH
R2 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2014
--------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI IN CRL.M.P.
NO.5951/2013 DATED 03/01/2014.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN CRL.M.A NO.8952/2013 IN CRL.M.C NO.4229/2013
DATED 18/11/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
---------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER
SHOWING STUDIED UP TO VIIITH STANDARD.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No.384 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2014
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, in Criminal M.P No.5951/2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the `Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.667/2013 of Karipoor Police Station, registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Emigration Authority, alleging offences under Section 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (1)(b) of Indian Passport Act. The allegation was that, she had committed forgery and obtained a passport and also manipulation was done in the passport as well. She filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Manjeri, for interim custody of the passport under Section Crl. M.C. No.384 of 2014 2 451 of Criminal Procedure Code and that was dismissed by the court as per Annexure-A order, which is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this application.
3. The passport officer was also impleaded as the 2nd respondent in the case and he was represented by Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that, in view of the fact that, the passport has been obtained by committing forgery and they have revoked the passport issued and the remedy of the petitioner is to apply for fresh passport, if she wants a passport, which will be considered in accordance with law.
4. When this was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, that statement may be recorded and the petition can be disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to move the passport authorities for applying for a fresh passport. The Crl. M.C. No.384 of 2014 3 above submissions made by the Assistant Solicitor General of India and also the counsel for the petitioner are recorded. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a direction may be given to the passport officer to consider the application, if any filed and pass appropriate orders. There is no necessity to issue such direction to a statutory authority as if an application is filed, they are bound to consider and pass appropriate orders on that application. So, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Assistant Solicitor General of India are recorded and the petition is closed with liberty for the petitioner to move the passport authorities for issue of a fresh passport, if so advised.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss