A Delhi court has directed the formal framing of criminal charges against Sushil Ansal, who is already convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy, in a separate case related to passport fraud. The court found sufficient initial evidence that Ansal deliberately hid his criminal past while applying for a passport renewal.
Court Cites Prima Facie Evidence for Cheating and False Declarations
Chief Judicial Magistrate Shriya Agrawal, in an order dated November 28, stated there is "prima facie sufficient material" to proceed against Ansal. The charges pertain to offences including cheating and providing false information under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with violations of the Passports Act. The court has scheduled the matter for the formal framing of charges on January 13, 2026.
The case, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in 2019, alleges that Ansal furnished false information by failing to disclose his conviction in the Uphaar fire case. The tragic incident had claimed 59 lives. The court observed that Ansal "consciously concealed the details of criminal cases pending against him as also the order of conviction" in his 2013 Tatkaal passport application.
Deliberate Concealment to Evade Detection
The court order detailed that the misrepresentation was used "to induce the Regional Passport Office into issuing the passport." It further noted that Ansal not only withheld information about his convictions and pending FIRs but also "consciously did not give proper details of his previous address, to evade detection of true criminal history." The alleged false statements were made on two separate occasions, in 2013 and again in 2018.
Rejecting a subsequent claim of an unintentional error, the court emphasized that such a plea could not erase prior culpability. It pointed out that the accused had "remained in possession and used the valuable document throughout based on misleading declarations in breach of statutory requirements."
Court Dismisses Defence Arguments, Clears Path for Prosecution
The defence had argued that the prosecution could not proceed without a written complaint from the passport authority. However, the court ruled this condition was satisfied because the case was initiated pursuant to directions from the Delhi High Court. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, it stated that a High Court directive is "on a par with direction of an administrative superior public servant" for the purpose of taking cognizance.
Another defence argument of double jeopardy was also dismissed. The court clarified that penalties previously imposed by the Passport Authority and the current criminal proceedings are separate legal processes and "cannot be considered punishment for the same offence." This clear demarcation allows the criminal trial to move forward independently.
This development marks a new legal front for Sushil Ansal, who has been embroiled in prolonged litigation over the Uphaar tragedy. The court's firm stance on the alleged passport fraud underscores the legal consequences of concealing a criminal history from government authorities.
