SRI. PRADEEP NRJ V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/40164/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Pradeep NRJ, the petitioner, who is facing a show-cause notice from the Regional Passport Office (respondent no.2) threatening to impound his passport due to a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner, accused in a case under sections 341, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC, sought to travel to Thailand for official duties. The court considered the implications of the Ministry of External Affairs' notification regarding travel permissions for individuals with pending criminal cases and allowed the petitioner to seek necessary permissions from the local court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722296 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sumedha R Bhosekar Vs. Union of India represented by Regional Passport Officer, Bengaluru
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Passports Act, 1967, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SINGH; S VISHWA MURTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH SHETTIGAR
• Keywords: Show cause notice; Travel Abroad; Writ petition; Passport Impound; Criminal Case Pending
• Section: 436

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.40164/2018(GM-PASS) BETWEEN: Sri Pradeep NRJ Aged about 28 years S/o Jayaram R/at Nayindrahalli, Hirekatigenahali Post, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur 563 125 ... PETITIONER (By Sri. Rajesh Shettigar, Advocate) AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, No.8, Patiala House Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110 001 2. Regional Passport Office, 80 feet Road, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095 Represented by Regional Passport Officer, 3. State of Karnataka, By Chinthamani Rural Police Station, 2 Chinthamani 563 125 Represented by Station House Officer ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Aditya Singh, learned ASG for R1 and R2.) By Sri S Vishwa Murthy, learned G.P. for R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 THREATENING THE PETITIONER TO IMPOUND THE PASSPORT NO.S4838241 VIDE ANNEXURE- A; DIRECT THE R-2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO TRAVEL ABROAD THROUGH PASSPORT NO.24838241 ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE- H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary , with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has assailed show-cause notice dated 20.08.2018 passed by respondent no.2 before taking action to impound petitioner’s Passport bearing No.S4838241, vide Annexure-A. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent no.2 to permit him to travel abroad under the said Passport. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to travel to Thailand on 2.10.2018 upto 7.10.2018 as per schedule finalized by his employer. That the petitioner is arraigned as accused no.3 in C.C.No.391/2016, which is pending on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chinthamani for the alleged offences punishable under sections 341, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. 4. It is averred that the respondent-police have also filed charge sheet on the basis of a complaint filed by Ramesh N.R. under the said provisions, inter alia against the petitioner herein alleging that on 23.3.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. the accused went near the house of the complainant with an intention to assault the complainant and threatened his wife and children. Copies of the FIR and charge sheet are produced as Annexures-B and C. It is further averred that the said offences are bailable in nature and the petitioner had filed an application under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he has been granted bail and presently he is on bail. That the trial 4 court has not imposed any restrictive conditions while granting bail. That the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chinthamani, Chikkaballapur District and working as a Professional Sales Officer in Mankind Pharma Ltd at Kolar since 10.06.2012. That the petitioner is an income tax assessee and has been paying income tax regularly. That the petitioner was issued Passport under ‘Tatkal Scheme’ bearing No.S4838241 on 16.07.2018 valid up to 15.07.2028 for a period of 10 years. That the petitioner has to travel Thailand in order to discharge his official duties, as a Professional Sales Officer at Mankind Pharma Ltd. But the impugned show-cause notice dated 20.08.2018 has threatened to impound his Passport and therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file this writ petition owing to the fact that the petitioner intends to travel overseas. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and learned HCGP for respondent no.3 and perused the material on record. 5 6. During the course of their submission, they submitted that the petitioner would have to approach the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chinthamani for seeking permission to travel abroad pursuant to the notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, dated 25th August 1993. They submitted that this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court where the criminal proceeding is pending so as to seek orders for travel abroad as per the Passport which has been issued to the petitioner herein and that the writ petition may be disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 7. In this regard, reliance is placed on order dated 14.6.2016 passed in W.P.No.57756/2015(GM-PASS) in the case of Sumedha R Bhosekar Vs. Union of India represented by Regional Passport Officer, Bengaluru. 8. On perusal of the said order, it is noted that the notification of the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 in exercise of power conferred under clause 22(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, stipulating certain conditions for issuance of the passport as well as 6 permission to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending against a person has been extracted. The same reads as under: “MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 GSR.570(E): In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued- 7 (i) for the period specified in order of the Court referred to above, if the Court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above, can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court, and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified; 8 (c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh Court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.” 9. Further, it is noted that the object and purpose of issuance of the impugned show cause notice is to seek clarification on the adverse police verification report regarding pending of a criminal case and suitable explanation thereof, with regard to suppressing of material information in the passport application filed by the petitioner. Having regard to the Notification, issued by the “Ministry of External Affairs”, New Delhi, the 25th August 1993, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chinthamani and seek permission to 9 travel abroad by making an appropriate application and thereafter is at liberty to approach the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Chintamani and seek permission to travel abroad by making an appropriate application and also give reply to the notice at Annexure-A, upon which respondent no.2- Authority to consider the aspect regarding impounding the passport as the petitioner intends to travel to Thailand on 02.10.2018 . In the circumstances, the impugned show cause notice need not be quashed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Chinthamani and also give reply to the impugned notice dated 20.08.2018. Once the order is passed by the said Court and the reply is considered by respondent no.2-authority, necessary action shall be taken expeditiously by respondent No.2- authority, having regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to travel to Thailand on 02.10.2018. The writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 10 In view of the urgency pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner operative portion of the order be made available to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP for respondent no.3. Sd/- JUDGE Psg* "