GANESH CHANDRA KAPURIA v. STATE — 1985 DIGILAW 300 (CAL)

S. P. DAS GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under S. 482 Cr. P. C. , heard as contested application, is for quashing a proceeding, being C. G. R 3876/84 (Alipore P. S. Case NO. 296 dated 9-11-1984) under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC as well as for quashing or setting aside a letter of complaint dated 9-11-1984by one Ashis Sen Gupta, Sub Inspector (S. B.) and a formal FIR dated 9-11-1984 drawn up on the basis of the letter of complaint from S I, Ashis Sen Gupta. ( 2 ) ON 9-11-1984, St, Ashis Sen Gupta, attached to the Special branch, lodged a complaint with the O/c, Alipore P. S. To the effect that the petitioner Gandsh Chandera Kapuria, being a Bangladesh national, procured an Indian Citizenship Certificate on 18-10-1977 on suppressing facts and documents relation to his Bangladesh nationality and thereby committed offences punishable under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S. 420 IPC. The letter of complaint was treated as the FIR, and Alipore P. S Case No. 296 dated 9-11-1984was started against the petitioner. In the formal FIR, there was also an allegation that the petitioner knowingly made a representation, which was false, to secure an Indo-Bangladesh passport and that he, thus, cheated the government of India. It is for quashing this Alipore P. S case no 296-dated 9-11-1984 and the letter of complaint from S. I Ashis Sen Gupta, that the present application has been filed. Mr. Dipankar Ghose, learned Counsel appearing form the petitioner, has contended that when the FCIR or the letter of complaint did not disclose the commission of any of the offences under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, S 144 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC none of these offences was committee by the p0eutioner and hence, the letter of complaint, the formal FIR and the Alipore P. S. Case NO. 296-dated 9-11-1984 should be quashed. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the submissions of Mr. Ghosh as well as Mr. Ramendra Nath Basu, learned Counsels for the State, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted. This was a case of registration as a citizen of India under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the submissions of Mr. Ghosh as well as Mr. Ramendra Nath Basu, learned Counsels for the State, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted. This was a case of registration as a citizen of India under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Under Rule 3 of the Citizenships Rules, 1956, an application or registration as a citizen under S 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act is to be in Form I There is nothing in Form. I to show hat at the time of making the application for registration as a citizen of India under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, the petitioner was to disclose that he was a citizen of Bangladesh or any other foreign county. The very fact that the petitioner applied for registration as an Indian citizenship goes to show that the petitioner was not an Indian Citizen on the date of his application. In the case of Abdus Samad v State of West Bengal ( AIR 1974 SC 505 ), it was decided that an application for registration as an Indian citizen under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act repels any plea of Indian citizenship of the person making the application. If the law does not require disclosure if a particular fact, non-disclosure of such, fact, such as, citizenship of Bangladesh of the petitioner, cannot amount to suppression or misrepresentation. The non-disclosure of the fat for the petitioner's. Bangladesh nationality at the time of obtaining the Indian Citizenship Certificate on 18-10-1977 does not constitute a violation of S. 5 of the Citizenship Act or any other provision of that Act and hence, it is not punishable under S. 417 of the Citizenship Act. The non disclosure of his Bangladesh nationality by the petitioner for the purpose of obtain ring the Indian Citizenship Certified dowse not constitute any violation of any of the provisions of the Freighters. ' Act and is not punish be under S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act. So far as the accusation under S. 420 IPC is concerned, it is to be stated that the allegation in the formal FIR is that the petitioner made false repaired notation to procure an Indo-Bangladesh passport and thus, cheered the Government of India. ' Act and is not punish be under S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act. So far as the accusation under S. 420 IPC is concerned, it is to be stated that the allegation in the formal FIR is that the petitioner made false repaired notation to procure an Indo-Bangladesh passport and thus, cheered the Government of India. This accusation cannot also stand as no Indo Bangladesh passport was delivered to the petitioner and the concerned authority did not do or omit to do anything in consequence of any alleged misrepresentation of the petitioner. There is no allegation in the formal FIR that the petitioner deceived anybody. As already stated, when the law does not require disclosure of the fat of Bangladesh citizenship of the petitioner at the time of making the application in Form-I for obtaining the Indian Citizenship Certificate, non disclosure of this fat cannot amount to any misrepresentation by the petitioner. The formal FIR or the letter of complaint by S. I, Ashis Sen Gupta, does not, thus, disclose the commission of any of the offence under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC. ( 4 ) THE question is whether, in the aforesaid circumstances, the letter of complaint, the formal F. I. R and the Alipore P. S. Case No 296 dated 9-11-1984 should be quashed or not. 'the contention of Mr. Dipankar Ghose is that the letter of complaint, the formal F. I. R. and the Alipore P. S. Case No. This Court in edercise of its inherent power undef S 482 Cr. P. C. can quash 296-dated 9-11-1984. The contention of Mr. Ramendra Nath Basu, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, is that the Court cannot interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate cognizable offences by exercising its inherent power under S. 482 Cr. P. C. (Previously S. 561-A Cr P. C. ). Undoubtedly, the power of investigation into cognizable offences is a statutory power of the police and is not interfered with by the subordinate courts. So far as the High Court is concerned, there may be some exceptional cases in which the High Court may have to interfere with powers of investigation into cognizable offences by the police. This is a case of this nature. So far as the High Court is concerned, there may be some exceptional cases in which the High Court may have to interfere with powers of investigation into cognizable offences by the police. This is a case of this nature. If the witted complaint by S. I. Ashis Sen Gupta, the formal FIR and the consequent Alipore P S Case No 296 dated 9-11-1984 against the petitioner under S. 17 of the Citizenship Acts, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S. 420 I. P. C. Do not contain ingredients of any of these offences, there is no reason why this Court will not interfere in exercise its inherent power, with the investigation into these offences for preventing uncalled for and unnecessary harassment too the-petitioner. It is competent to the High Court in exercised of its power under S. 482 Cr P. C. (Previously S. 561- A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure), to quash the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of such offences (see R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; Pratibha Rani v Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628 ; Sharada Prasad v State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and State of West Bengal v Swapan Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949 ). So far as this Court is concerned, his Court is also of the view that even the stage of investigation; this Court can interfere, in exercise of its inherent power, with the investigation of a case, when the F. I. R. taken in its entirety and accepted at its face value does not disclose elements of a cognizable case (See Mangal Chouhan v. State,1983 Cr L J. 279 ). As such, there is no reason why this Court well not interferes with the investigation of the Alipore P. S. Case No 296 dated 9-11-1984, when the written complaint by S. I. Ashis Sen Gupta, or the formal F. I. R. under S 17 of the Citizenship Act, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S. 420 I. P. C. , does not disclose the essential requirements of these penal provisions. A first Information Report, which does not allege or disclose the essential requirements of a penal provision, cannot form the foundation or he stating point of a lawful investigation. A first Information Report, which does not allege or disclose the essential requirements of a penal provision, cannot form the foundation or he stating point of a lawful investigation. The written complaint by S. I. Ashis Sen Gupta the formal F. I. R and the Alipore P. S. Case No 296 dated 9-11-1984 are, accordingly, to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE application is, accordingly, allowed. The written complaint dated 9-11-1984 by S. I. Ashis Sen Gupta, against the petitioner, the formal FIR, dated 9-11-1984 and the impugned proceeding, being No C. G. R. 3876/84 Alipore P. S. Case No 296 dated 9-11-1984) are quashed. Application allowed.