Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Arif Mohiuddin @ Arif vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6615 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED ARIF MOHIUDDIN @ ARIF
S/O M.D.ALEEM UDDIN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.18-1, 350/11/42
YOUSUFAIN COLONY
BABANAGARA
HYDRABAD - 500 005
TELANGANA STATE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT P.S. (BIAL POLICE)
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.15853/2019 (CR.NO.14/2019) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
2
198, 199, 200, 417, 466, 474, 471, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC,
SECTION 12(1A) AND 12(A) OF PASSPORT ACT, SECTION 14A(b) OF
FOREIGNERS ACT AND SECTION 5 OF THE REGISTRATION OF
FOREIGNERS ACT, REGISTERED AND CHARGED SHEETED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
P.S. (B.I.A.L. POLICE) IS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.10 in C.C.No.15853 of 2019 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of crime No.14 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of the IPC, Sections 12(A) and 12(1A) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 calls in question the entire proceedings instituted against him.
2. Heard Mr. Afroz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
3
3. Brief facts, as projected by the Prosecution, are as follows:
A complaint is registered on 14-02-2019 by the Bangalore International Airport Police that passengers came to board flight No.6E1813 of Indigo Airlines to Kualalumpur, Malaysia and at the clearance seven persons submitted their documents along with the photographs which cast a doubt upon their nationhood. On enquiry, the said passengers revealed that they were citizens of Mayanmar and they were illegally staying at Hyderabad, created Aadhar card, voter ID, passport and had used the said documents and obtained tickets to fly to Kualalumpur on 14.02.2019. Based upon the said enquiry, crime was registered before the Kempegowda International Airport Police Station in Crime No.14 of 2019 against those passengers for the offences afore-noted. On the FIR being registered, the Police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet on 15-04-2019 for the offences punishable 4 under Sections 198, 199, 200, 417, 466, 474, 471, 420, 120B r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 12(1A) and 12(A) of the Passports Act, 1967, Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act. It is here the name of the petitioner figures as accused No.10. It is upon the petitioner being arraigned as accused No.10 in the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the passengers who were caught and against whom the crime was registered. The petitioner had been arraigned as accused No.10 only on the voluntary statements recorded or said to have been given by other accused and therefore, would seek quashment of entire proceedings on the ground that none of the offences alleged in the charge sheet can be laid against the petitioner.
5
5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the name of the petitioner has not been simply dragged into the proceedings, as there was clear indication in the investigation and the statements that it is the petitioner who had facilitated/generated all documents in favour of the accused and would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. The afore-quoted fact of seven passengers/accused 1 to 7 being caught during immigration clearance is not in dispute. After registration of the crime against those accused, statements were recorded which clearly bring out the role of other accused. The crime was initially against those accused who were caught during immigration 6 clearance. Further investigation revealed that the petitioner was also one of those who was instrumental in documentation for those illegal immigrants. The charge sheet filed by the Police after investigation reads as follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 14-02-2019 gÀAzÀÄ 13-10 UÀAmÉUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ CAvÀgÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÀ¯A £ÀA.3 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁå£Áägï zÉñÀ¢AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÀºÀzÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆAzÀzÉ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉñÀPÉÌ CPÀæªÀĪÁV §AzÀÄ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉñÀzÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ UÀÄgÀÄw£À aÃn, DzsÁgï PÁqïð, ¥Áå£ï PÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á¸ï¥ÉÆÃmïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ® ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ J4) ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ¥sÁgÀÆPï £À §zÀ¯ÁV NªÀÄgï ¥sÁgÀÆPï JA§ÄzÁV, J7) ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ¸À°ÃA£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï vÁºÉÃgï JA§ÄzÁV, J7) ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ¸Á¢üPï FvÀ£ÀÄ gÀdvï ªÉÆAqÀ¯ï JA§ÄzÁVAiÀÄÆ, J6) ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ªÀÄĸÁÛ¥sÀ£ÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ «ªÁºÀªÁUÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ vÀ£Àß ¥Àwß jºÁ£À ¨ÉÃUÀA JA§ÄzÁV vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ® ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁaPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉñÀPÉÌ CPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉÃ, ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄß ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ, ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr, ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉà J¯Áè DgÉƦUÀ¼ÀÄ M¼À ¸ÀAZÀÄ £Àqɹ, ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¥ÀæeÉUÀ¼ÀÄ C¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ UÀÄgÀÄw£À aÃn, DzsÁgï PÁqïð, ¥Á¸ï¥ÉÆmïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¥ÀæeÉUÀ¼Éà JA§ÄªÀAvÉ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¥Á¸ï¥ÉÆmïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï £ÀUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À CAvÀgÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ªÀįÉòAiÀiÁ zÉñÀzÀ PË®¯ÁA¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀiÁt ¨É¼É¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
CzÀÄzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À C£ÀéAiÀÄ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ."7
The allegation is entry of illegal immigrants to India and their working under the labour contractor - the petitioner and the statements given by other accused who are citizens of Mayanmar which depict that the petitioner was also prima facie instrumental in documentation. Based on the said statements and the charge sheet so filed which depict the role of the petitioner, the stage for interference with the proceedings against the petitioner is yet to arrive, as all those have been clearly brought out during custodial interrogation.
8. It is the allegation against the petitioner that he was also a part of the larger conspiracy in generating documents such as Aadhar card, passport and other documents to show that the travellers/accused 1 to 7 were in fact citizens of this country. Such instances of immigrants entering the country and generating documents that depict them to be citizens of this country with the connivance of the locals, 8 which would facilitate their travel, stay or even work in the country has mushroomed to a large extent. This is a matter in public domain. Creation of documents and showing them to be citizens of this country will have catastrophic effect on the nation's interest and many a time nation's security. Therefore, such cases where there is prima facie evidence with regard to involvement of any accused in creation and preparation of documents to facilitate illegal immigrants to stay in this nation should definitely be dealt with iron hand, as nation's interest or nation's security cannot be put to peril.
9. The petitioner, though claims that he is innocent and is not involved in the conspiracy of creation of documents like the other accused, it is for him to come out clean in the trial as there are plethora of documents procured during investigation which form part of the charge sheet, which would point out the role of the petitioner. 9 Since the issue is in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact, fishing of evidence to notice the role of the petitioner in the entire episode would not come within the limits of exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. particularly, when nation's interest or nation's security is the subject matter of crime.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
It is made clear that observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora.
I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp