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.

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

5. The learned couns