Calcutta High Court: An application was filed by a Swiss National (petitioner) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of proceedings in a case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling arguing that his entry into India was legitimate, and any issues arose from technicalities and misunderstandings. Bivas Pattanayak, J., quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as he held a valid passport and visa, with his stay extended until 21-08-2024, as verified by the e-FRRO document.
The petitioner visited India for tourism with a valid passport and visa issued on 19-03-2024, permitting his stay until 18-04-2024. During his stay, he sought permission from the Foreigners Registration Office (FRO) to enter Sikkim, where immigration officials discovered the absence of an arrival stamp on his passport. This raised questions about the legality of his entry, leading to his arrest and the registration of an FIR under Darjeeling Sadar Police Station under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against him under the same section.
The petition stated that initially, he had attempted to enter India through the Sonauli Land Immigration Check Post (LICP) on the Nepal-India border, where his entry was canceled, and he was directed to fly to Delhi. However, based on a travel agent’s assurance, he re-entered India through Gorakhpur, leading to the absence of an arrival stamp. The petitioner contended that this mistake was due to misguidance and a language barrier, not malicious intent.
Counsel for petitioner emphasized that he entered India on a valid passport and visa and sought permission to enter Sikkim, which led to the discovery of the missing arrival stamp. The lack of malicious intent and the bona fide nature of the mistake, protected under Section 15 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, were highlighted. The State’s counsel noted the absence of mala fide allegations and the delay in receiving a report from the Passport Authority, which delayed the supplementary charge sheet.
The Court found that the petitioner held a valid passport and visa, with his stay extended until August 21, 2024, as verified by the e-FRRO document. The investigation revealed no malicious intent; the missing arrival stamp was a genuine mistake. Consequently, the revisional application was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed as the petitioner’s genuine mistake, compounded by misleading advice and language barriers, did not warrant prosecution under Section 14 of Foreigners Act.
[Christian Marc Durand v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6110, decided on 20-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sanjay Vashistha Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Mr. Saptak Mazumder Ms. Khushi Kundu, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty M r. Arjun Chowdhury, Advocates for the State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
