1. Matrimonial dispute — Criminal prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act — Police request for passport under Section 91, Cr.P.C. — Dispute over return of passport. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Chennupati Kranthi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1601-1602 of 2023
Decided on : 25-07-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreeyash U.Lalit,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham,Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna,Adv. Mrs.V.D.Khanna,Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Nambiar,Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K.,Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi,Adv. Mr. Indra Bhakar,Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa,Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivasan Udupa, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. Suresh Kumar Potturi, Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv. Mr. Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakara Reddy, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreeyash U.Lalit,Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham,Adv. Ms. Prashi Tyagi,Adv. Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna,Adv. Mrs.V.D.Khanna,Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Nambiar,Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K.,Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi,Adv. Mr. Indra Bhakar,Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma,Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa,Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivasan Udupa, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. Suresh Kumar Potturi, Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv. Mr. Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakara Reddy, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Impounding of Passport – Power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound Passport – Under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., Police have power to seize Passport but there is no power to impound the same – It is Passport Authority to decide whether Passport needs to be impounded.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102 and 104 read with Section 91 – Passports Act, 1967 – Section 10 – Impounding of Passport – Power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound Passport – Under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., Police have power to seize Passport but there is no power to impound the same – It is Passport Authority to decide whether Passport needs to be impounded – In present case, Police took custody of appellant’s Passport in exercise of powers under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and handed over the same to Regional Passport Office – Exercise of calling upon appellant to submit his Passport was not legal – Thereafter, Passport was never impounded in exercise of power under Section 10 of PP Act – There is nothing on record to show that Passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. – As there was neither seizure of Passport nor impounding thereof, appellant was entitled to return of Passport – As there was neither a seizure nor impounding of Passport, it was unauthorisedly retained by Regional Passport Office – Direction by High Court to return Passports of his wife and son as a condition for release of appellant’s Passport was completely illegal – Impugned condition set aside – Appeals partly allowed with observations. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Dispute involved in these appeals concerns return of the passport of the appellant. It is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and 4th respondent who is his wife.
Findings of Court:
If 4th respondent wants some documents from the appellant only for the purposes of filing an application for the reissue of passport or for grant of a fresh passport, the appellant shall cooperate by doing the needful.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Whether police possess power to impound passports — Whether return of passport can be conditioned upon returning passports of other family members. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Police cannot impound passports under Section 104, Cr.P.C. — Passports must be forwarded to Passport Authority — Conditions for return must be legally supported. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Power to impound passports vests exclusively with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967; Police cannot impound passports under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Condition to return passports of spouse and child set aside — Spouse permitted to apply for reissue of passport — Fixed deposit condition confirmed. (Para 12 )
6. Can the police impound a passport under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
No. The power to impound a passport vests exclusively with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967. While police may seize a passport under Section 102, Cr.P.C., they cannot impound it and must forward it to the Passport Authority for a decision. (Para 8 )
7. What is the legal effect of Section 104, Cr.P.C. regarding passports?
Section 104, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport because the specific provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports, prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 8 )
8. Can the return of a passport be conditioned upon the return of passports belonging to other persons?
No. Such a condition is not supported by law, especially when the retention of the passport by authorities was unauthorized or illegal. The affected party may instead apply to the Passport Authority for a reissue or fresh passport. (Para 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay S. Oka, J.
Though the dispute involved in these appeals concerns the return of the passport of the appellant, it is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and 4th respondent who is his wife. With a view to understand the controversy, a brief reference to factual aspects will be necessary.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The appellant is accused no.1 in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the 1961 Act). During the course of the investigation into the said offences, the Police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) calling upon the appellant to produce his passport. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his passport to the concerned police station, which in turn, handed over the original passport to the 3rd respondent - Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad. There was a correspondence exchanged between the 3rd respondent and the appellant. The 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 11th February 2021 informing the appellant to get permission from the competent Court for the release of his passport.
3. The appellant is working in a company in USA. He came to India on a leave to perform the first death anniversary rituals of his father. While he was in India, a complaint was filed by the 4th respondent-wife against the appellant and other family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 403 and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act. Prior to that, on 19th January 2021, the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the appellant, in which it was recorded that the Police authorities have forwarded his original passport to him. In the same notice, it was alleged that the appellant was in possession of the passport of 4th respondent. The appellant was called upon to return the passport to the 4th respondent.
4. The appellant made an application to the Court of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada for issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent to return the passport. The appellant pleaded that he has a fundamental right to travel abroad conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He pointed out in the application that he needs to go back to USA to attend his job. The application was opposed by the 4th respondent on various grounds. On 14th June 2022, the application was dismissed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the 3rd respondent to return the passport of the appellant to facilitate his travel abroad, subject to the following conditions:
a. The appellant shall deposit a sum of 110 lakhs by way of a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the 4th respondent; and
b. The appellant shall submit the original passports of the 4th respondent and his minor son.
The appellant was aggrieved by the condition of producing the passports of his son (who is a citizen of USA) and his wife - 4th respondent. The appellant applied for the modification of the said order insofar as it directed him to return the passports of his wife and minor son. The contention of the appellant was that the passport of his son was lost in July 2021 and that the appellant has complied with the necessary procedure to get a new passport issued. He also contended that the appellant was not in possession of the passport of the 4th respondent. He, however, agreed to comply with the condition for depositing the sum of 110 lakhs by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the 4th respondent-wife. Even the said application was rejected by the High Court. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged in these appeals.
SUBMISSIONS
