JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that this Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No.319 dated 15.06.2019 registered at PS Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Further, all subsequent proceedings arising out of above mentioned F.I.R. including warrant of arrest u/s 37 of Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 may also be quashed and set aside. Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner submitted an application form in the year 2016 for issuance of a Passport, which was entered as passport application dated 15.09.2016, while annexing therewith a copy of her marksheet of Class-Xth, which mark-sheet later on was found to be forged, and thereafter, the impugned FIR was lodged against her by the concerned passport authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted even without complying with the requirement of Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act'), which provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf, and thus, the present petitioner cannot be prosecuted, in pursuance of the impugned FIR, moreso in absence of any cheating or forgery on her part. The said Section 15 reads as under:- "15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf." 5. The said Section 15 reads as under:- "15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:- "12. Offences and penalties.-(1) Whoever- (a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or (b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or (c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or (d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or (e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. (1A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,- (a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport by suppressing information about his nationality, or (b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. (2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)] shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section for that offence. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has appeared in her Class-Xth Examination, under the belief given by certain persons that after passing the said examination, she would be issued a valid mark-sheet therefor; however, she was issued a fake mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which the petitioner, only under the bona fide belief of the same being genuine, submitted alongwith her passport application form. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the petitioner has not committed any cheating or forgery for obtaining the passport. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: (a) Malcolm War Macleod Vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 CalHN 124 (decided by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court), reported in . (b) Surinder Singh (Constable) No.280/CPF Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors,2012 4 RSJ 77 (decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court), reported in . (c) Mohammed Hussain Pangadan Vs. State of Kerala,2015 4 KLT 40 (decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court), reported in . (d) State of Gujarat Vs. Iliyasbhai Adambhai Vohra,2017 176 AIC 294 (decided by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court). (e) Mohammad Yusuf Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.706/2017, decided by this Court on 27.04.2017). (f) Mary Vs. State of Kerala (Criminal Revision Petition No.3265/2005, decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 25.01.2018). (g) Sharankumar Vs. Sudhi Choudhary & Anr. (Criminal Petition No.9441/2016, decided by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on 26.02.2019). (h) Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Kerala (Crl.MC. No.7330/2016, decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 13.11.2019). (i) Kiran Kanta Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Misc. Application No.171/2014, decided by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court on 15.11.2019). (j) Shareer Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. MC No.6183/2019 (C), decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 19.11.2019). (k) Sri Mohammed Jahanjeer Vs. (h) Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Kerala (Crl.MC. No.7330/2016, decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 13.11.2019). (i) Kiran Kanta Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Misc. Application No.171/2014, decided by Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court on 15.11.2019). (j) Shareer Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. MC No.6183/2019 (C), decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 19.11.2019). (k) Sri Mohammed Jahanjeer Vs. The State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No.1563/2020, decided by Hon'ble Telangana High Court on 10.03.2020). 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the misc. petition, submitted that prosecution sanction, as provided for under Section 15 of the Act, is required only for the purpose of the offences being made out under the Act of 1967 i.e. the offences as defined under Section 12 of the Act, whereas in the present case, the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which are independently sustainable, are being found to be made out against the present petitioner. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully examining the record and the facts of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the requirement of obtaining prior sanction for prosecution under Section 15 of the Act is only provided in respect of the cases, only where the provisions of Section 12 of the Act have been violated. 10. Upon dealing particularly with Section 12(b) of the Act, this Court finds that the offences punishable, as per the said provision of the Act, are furnishing of false information or suppressing any material information to obtain a passport or travel document, whereas in the present case, it is mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which has been forged, and thus, this case travels much beyond the scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Act. 11. The aforementioned precedent laws cited on behalf of the petitioner apply only in the cases, where the parameters of the complaint lodged by the passport authority falls within the purview of Section 12 of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is clearly an offence of submitting a forged mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which is much beyond the offence, as compared to the offences provided under Section 12 of the Act. 12. 12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the aforementioned precedent laws and protection as provided under Section 15 of the Act, will not apply in the present case, as a clear and independent case, in relation to the offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the present petitioner, which is much beyond the purview of Section 12 of the Act. Moreover, the petitioner has clearly admitted that when she appeared in her Class-Xth Examination, she was duped by certain persons, while giving her a belief that she would be having a valid mark-sheet of Class Xth, whereas it was not a valid mark-sheet. 13. In view of the above, no case for making any interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.