Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging the communication issued by the Regional Passport Officer, whereby he has been informed that decision has been taken to impound the passport issued in his favour under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 on the ground of pending criminal case, the division bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla*, JJ., while setting aside the impugned decision for impounding petitioner’s passport, directed the Passport Officer to reconsider the matter, grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order within six weeks of the date of service of a copy of this order.
Background:
The petitioner’s wife has lodged an FIR against him for offences under Sections 498-A1, 3232, 4063, 5044, 5065 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 3 read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused of the aforesaid crime have filed an application under Section 4826 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) before this Court, wherein the Court had stayed the proceedings. However, the passport issued in his favour was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 on the ground of a pending criminal case.
Analysis and Decision:
After taking note of Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967, the Court noted that the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded a passport if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport are pending before the criminal court in India.
The Court said that the legislature under Section 10 (3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 had deliberately used word ‘may’ meaning thereby that in the eventualities enumerated under Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1967 , the passport officer by recording reasons can impound passport, but it is not necessary that in every case falling under Section 3, the passport officer is mandatorily required to impound the passport.
The Court added that the legislature under Section 10 (3)(e) has given power/discretion to the passport authority that if it is satisfied then it can impound the passport of a person on the ground of pending proceedings in relation to an offence in the criminal court, then prior to passing the order of impounding passport, the passport officer after considering the facts and circumstances of each case has to record reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due to pending criminal proceedings in a criminal court, the passport holder may misuse the passport for avoiding his appearance before the court and can delay the conclusion of the proceedings.
The Court noted that a criminal case relating to matrimonial discord is pending against the petitioner in the criminal court and proceedings of the said case have been stayed by the High Court and mediation proceedings are in process.
The Court said that the passport officer has not considered the facts of the criminal case and has also not recorded reasons to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner may misuse his passport for avoiding his presence before the criminal court and also for delaying the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and therefore it is necessary to impound his passport under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967.
The Court further said that Section 10 (5) of the Passports Act, 1967 mandates the passport authority to give brief reasons for passing the order for impounding of the passport, but in the present case impugned communication does not disclose that the passport authority has made any consideration of the facts of the case and has recorded reasons.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned decision for impounding petitioner’s passport. Further, the Court directed the Passport Officer to reconsider the matter, and pass a fresh order within six weeks of the date of service of a copy of this order.
Also Read:
[Mohammad Umar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3867, decided on 25-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Suhel Ahmad Azmi
Counsel for Respondent: – Chief Standing Counsel
5. Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
