SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has overturned a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the Foreigners Act against a trustee of the Kashmir Shaiva Institute. The court ruled that a board member cannot be prosecuted under the act solely due to their association with the institution, unless there are specific allegations of them being the designated ‘keeper’ of the premises responsible for statutory obligations concerning foreign guests.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Justice M.A. Chowdhary delivered the order on July 23, 2026, allowing a petition filed by Inder Krishan Raina. The ruling quashed FIR No. 115/2024, registered at Police Station Nawabad in Jammu, pertaining to sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, specifically concerning the petitioner. The court, however, clarified that the investigating agency retains the freedom to pursue action against any other individual against whom an offence is established.
The legal proceedings originated from an FIR lodged on August 8, 2024, following a communication from the Jammu District Police Headquarters. The police alleged that the management of the Ishwar Ashram Trust had failed to report the stay of Lara Hiopec, a national of Argentina, at the trust’s Jammu branch during the period of 2021-22. This failure was attributed to not filing the mandatory online C-Form through the Immigration, Visa, Foreigners Registration and Tracking (IVFRT) system. The police contended that Inder Krishan Raina, identified as a member of the trust’s management committee, had concealed information regarding the foreigner’s presence, thereby making him liable under the specified sections of the Foreigners Act.
Representing the petitioner, advocate Ayushman Kotwal argued that his client was merely one of the trustees and neither the keeper of the premises nor responsible for its daily operations or accommodation arrangements. The defence maintained that Section 7 of the Foreigners Act imposes obligations exclusively on the ‘keeper’ of premises where foreigners are housed, and not on every trustee or office-bearer of an institution.
The High Court, in its judgment, rejected the prosecution’s contention. The bench affirmed that the statutory obligation under Section 7 is confined to the individual functioning as the keeper of the premises. Justice Chowdhary quoted the judgment, stating that the provision cannot be invoked based solely on a person’s status as a trustee, office-bearer, or member of an organization managing the premises, unless concrete allegations demonstrate that such an individual acted in the capacity of a ‘keeper’ or was accountable for the duties outlined in the provision.
The court observed that the FIR lacked any specific allegations indicating that Raina had provided accommodation to the foreign national, maintained records of her stay, or fulfilled any statutory duty incumbent upon a keeper under the Act. The judges further noted that the allegations in the FIR did not establish the petitioner as the keeper of the Ashram premises where the foreign national resided. They emphasised that criminal liability is inherently personal and cannot be imposed merely due to an individual’s affiliation with an institution, management, or organization.
The ruling drew upon previous decisions from the Kerala High Court, specifically Vijukumar v. State of Kerala (2009) and Manjit Singh v. State of Kerala (2018). These precedents established that only the person directly in charge of a hotel or a similar establishment can be held liable for failing to report information concerning foreign nationals.
Underscoring the scope of its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court stated that if the allegations within an FIR, even when accepted fully, do not constitute the elements of the alleged offence against a particular accused, the continuation of criminal proceedings against that individual would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court concluded that allowing criminal proceedings to proceed against the petitioner, who was not assigned any specific role fulfilling the criteria of Section 7 of the Foreigners Act, would serve no practical purpose and would subject him to unwarranted harassment, thereby constituting an abuse of process.
Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 115/2024 concerning Inder Krishan Raina. The investigating agency, however, was granted liberty to proceed against any other individual against whom an offence is determined to have been committed.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
