"‘Suspicious Conduct Deters This Court’: Kerala High Court Holds That Furnishing False Information Under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act Attracts Offence Even for Foreign Nationals"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun dismissed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by a British citizen of Indian origin seeking to quash proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Passports Act, and Foreigners Act. The Court held that the allegations against the petitioner warranted prosecution and declined to grant him any relief. The Court directed that the investigation and criminal proceedings shall continue as per law, observing that the petitioner's suspicious conduct precluded any sympathetic consideration.
The petitioner, a British citizen of Indian origin, was accused in Crime No. 1388 of 2024 registered at Nedumbassery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(1A) of the Passports Act, 1967, and Sections 14A(a) and 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The criminal case arose after immigration officers at Cochin International Airport found pages 17 to 20 missing from the petitioner’s British passport on 24.12.2024 when he attempted to travel back to the United Kingdom. The police were informed, and a case was registered. Upon investigation, authorities discovered that the petitioner had previously surrendered his Indian passport in 2016 after acquiring Portuguese citizenship but had subsequently secured another Indian passport using a forged Aadhar card.
The petitioner was arrested and later granted bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, through an order dated 30.12.2024. The bail conditions required him to remain in Kerala under the supervision of a Civil Authority and to reside at a Transit Home in Kottiyam.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the criminal proceedings against him, contending that he was not liable under Indian law as he was no longer an Indian citizen. He claimed that the missing pages from his British passport were due to an inadvertent error at the time of renewal and denied any intentional tampering. The petitioner submitted that the offences under the Passports Act and Foreigners Act did not apply to him, given his foreign nationality and lawful entry into India on a valid visa.
The petitioner further argued that no mens rea was present to sustain the charges under Sections 465 and 471 IPC. He cited several decisions, including Balwinder Singh v. State and Raghuram Kamisetty v. Regional Passport Officer, in support of his case. The petitioner also pleaded that he had overstayed in India unintentionally after his visa expired and sought sympathetic consideration, citing hardship to his family and business in the United Kingdom.
The State, represented by the Senior Public Prosecutor and the Senior Panel Counsel, opposed the petition. They submitted that the petitioner had engaged in deliberate acts of fraud by securing multiple passports under different identities and addresses, thereby violating Indian laws. The respondents argued that the prosecution was legally justified under the Indian Penal Code, Passports Act, and Foreigners Act.
Justice V.G. Arun recorded that: “The documents on record reveal that the petitioner had been issued with an Indian Passport on 22.06.2002, which he surrendered and got cancelled in the year 2016.”
The Court stated: “Thereafter, petitioner obtained Annexure-R3(d) passport under a different name and address on 27.02.2015 which had validity up to 26.02.2025. For reasons known only to the petitioner, he got the passport renewed for the period 18.02.2016 to 17.02.2026.”
Referring to the applicability of the Passports Act, the Court recorded: “In so far as the petitioner is having an Indian Passport valid up to 17.02.2026, he cannot contend that the provisions of the Passports Act will not apply.”
The Court observed that: “Section 12(1)(b) of the Act would apply even to foreign citizens if the provisions of Section 3 are contravened.”
It was further stated: “Being so, petitioner’s attempt to depart from India without a valid passport or travel document, even if it is issued by a foreign Government is in contravention of Section 3 and would therefore attract Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act.”
Addressing the prosecution under the Foreigners Act, the Court recorded: “Even if the entry of a foreigner to India is lawful, his stay without the valid documents required for such stay will attract Section 14-A(b).”
The Court also observed regarding the petitioner’s plea for sympathetic consideration: “The suspicious conduct of the petitioner deters this Court from granting even the said temporary relief.”
Accordingly, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and held that the criminal prosecution was justified based on the available materials and applicable statutory provisions.
The High Court, after examining the entire matter, dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case, stating that, for the reasons detailed in the order, no grounds were made out for interference. The Court further recorded that the suspicious conduct of the petitioner deterred it from granting even temporary relief. As a result, the Court directed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner shall continue in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall remain subject to the ongoing investigation without permission to leave India.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: K. Rajeswary, Advocate; Anil Prabha K, Advocate; Aleena Anabelly A, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mini Gopinath, Senior Panel Counsel; T.C. Krishna, DSGI In Charge; Vipin Narayanan, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Arjun Madou Dugi v. State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:28367
Case Number: Crl.M.C No. 694 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
[Read/Download order]
