Facts
Petitioner No. 1, a Nigerian citizen, and Petitioner No. 2, a Sierra Leonean citizen, entered India through authorised immigration channels in 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 2.1–2.4They stated that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international travel and that they had approached the FRRO/e-FRRO authorities concerning extension or regularisation of their stay.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 2.1–2.4; p. 3, para. 8In 2022, an FIR was registered against them and others under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946, alleging overstay; charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 14, and they were later released on bail.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 2.5–2.7; p. 3, para. 2.7Their plea-bargaining application was dismissed as not maintainable.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 3, 9–10They sought to quash the FIR and related proceedings, stating that they wished to leave India for their respective home countries and that their continued presence was due to the criminal proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 3, 9–10Issues
1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for alleged visa overstay should be quashed, with the petitioners’ custody treated as the sentence undergone.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 6, 10; p. 4, para. 112. Whether the petitioners’ departure from India should be facilitated subject to undertakings and completion of immigration formalities.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 12–13Law Applied
The petitioners were charged under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for remaining in India beyond the authorised period; the Court noted that no minimum punishment is prescribed for that offence.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6The FIR had been registered under Section 14A of the Act.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2.5The judgment cites no precedent and does not identify a separate statutory provision as the basis for quashing; it records that the proceedings were quashed on the condition that the custody already undergone be treated as the sentence.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 11Reasoning
The Court considered that the petitioners had entered India through proper immigration channels, had made efforts to regularise or extend their stay, and attributed their inability to return to pandemic-related disruption of international travel.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 7–8It also noted the absence of a prescribed minimum punishment for the offence, the custody already undergone, and the petitioners’ stated intention to leave India.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 6, 10On those circumstances, the Court quashed the proceedings subject to treating the custody period as the sentence and imposing costs.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 11Holding
The Court quashed FIR No. 202/2022, the chargesheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings, treating the petitioners’ custody as the sentence undergone and directing each petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks Association.
The petitioners were directed to file undertakings that they would not continue residing in India and would leave upon completion of immigration formalities within 15 days; the FRRO/Bureau of Immigration was directed to process their exit permissions expeditiously, with the Investigating Officer to facilitate the process.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 12–14Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Foreigners Act, 19462
Original Court PDF
Sandra Nwokpoku And AnrvsState ( Nct Of Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
