SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR registered against a trustee of the Kashmir Shaiva Institute (formerly Ishwar Ashram Trust), holding that a member of the Board of Trustees cannot be prosecuted under the Foreigners Act merely because of his association with the institution unless there are specific allegations that he was the “keeper” of the premises responsible for complying with statutory obligations relating to foreign guests.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary passed the order on July 23, 2026, allowing a petition filed by Inder Krishan Raina and quashing FIR No. 115/2024 registered at Police Station Nawabad, Jammu, under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, insofar as it related to the petitioner. The court clarified that the investigating agency was free to proceed against any other person against whom an offence was made out.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Ayushman Kotwal, while Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh appeared for the Union Territory.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered on August 8, 2024, following a communication from the Jammu District Police Headquarters alleging that the management of Ishwar Ashram Trust had failed to report the stay of an Argentine national, Lara Hiopec, at the trust’s Jammu branch during 2021-22 through the mandatory online C-Form under the Immigration, Visa, Foreigners Registration and Tracking (IVFRT) system. Police alleged that Inder Krishan Raina, a member of the trust’s management committee, had concealed information regarding the foreign national’s stay and was therefore liable under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act.
The petitioner contended that he was merely one of the trustees of the trust and neither the keeper of the premises nor responsible for its day-to-day management or accommodation arrangements. He argued that Section 7 of the Foreigners Act imposes obligations only upon the “keeper” of premises where foreigners are accommodated and not upon every trustee or office-bearer of an institution.
Rejecting the prosecution’s stand, the High Court held that the statutory obligation under Section 7 is limited to the person who functions as the keeper of the premises.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Chowdhary observed: “The provision cannot be invoked merely on the basis that a person is a trustee, office bearer, or member of an organization owning or managing the premises, unless specific allegations demonstrate that such person was acting in the capacity of a ‘keeper’ or was responsible for the obligations contemplated under the said provision.”
The court found that the FIR contained no allegation that Raina had provided accommodation to the foreign national, maintained records of her stay or discharged any statutory duty imposed upon a keeper under the Act.
“The allegations contained in the impugned FIR do not disclose that the petitioner was the keeper of the Ashram premises where foreign national stayed,” the court said, adding that “criminal liability is personal in nature and cannot be fastened merely on account of an individual’s association with an institution, management or organization.”
The judgment relied on two Kerala High Court decisions, Vijukumar v. State of Kerala (2009) and Manjit Singh v. State of Kerala (2018), which held that only the person actually in charge of a hotel or similar establishment can be prosecuted for failing to furnish information regarding foreign nationals.
Emphasising the scope of its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court observed: “Where the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence against a particular accused, continuation of criminal proceedings against such person would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
It further held: “Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, who has not been attributed with any specific role satisfying the ingredients of Section 7 of the Foreigners Act, would serve no meaningful purpose and would subject the petitioner to unnecessary harassment, resulting into abuse of process.”
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 115/2024 qua the petitioner alone, while making it clear that the investigating agency would remain at liberty to proceed against any other person against whom an offence is found to have been made out.
