Constitution of India, 1950
Article 21—Right to travel abroad—Is a fundamental right of an individual, albeit not absolute, and subject to established legal procedures.
[Para 38]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 173(8)—Supplementary report—Provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than re-evaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of CrPC—In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) of the Code—What becomes apparent from the facts on record is that the investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the trial Magistrate's order.
[Para 27]
Passports Act, 1967
Section 12(b)—Proof of offence—What must be established is that accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information with the intent of obtaining a passport or travel document—Cognizance of such like offence can be taken only at the instance of prescribed authority—No complaint to that effect has been disclosed against appellants.
[Paras 35 & 36]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 420, 468, 471 read with S. 34—Cheating and forgery—Dismissal of discharge application—Appeal—FIR lodged by husband against his wife alleging that she with her father purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain minor child’s passport—Every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful—Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC—Grant of passport to the minor child did not confer any benefit upon the appellant-wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to the second respondent/father of child—Second appellant, being the father of appellant-wife and assisting in securing the passport for the child, derived no direct or indirect benefit from this action—No dishonest intent can be made out against appellants— Insinuations made by second respondent, even if they possess an iota of truth, have miserably failed to prima facie establish the elements of ‘cheating’—Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand—Elementary ingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are conspicuously missing—Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant is nothing but an abuse of process of law—FIR quashed and second respondent held liable to pay cost of rupees one lakh to the appellant-wife—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 16 to 34]