ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking an order of quashing the proceedings of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam passed in Crl.MP. No. 2694 of 2019 in Crime No. 153 of 2019. This is a case which has undergone a number of twists and turns. The complaint is lodged under Section 498-A IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioner by his wife. Others are also added to the complaint. There were also allegations which are made against the Police Officers concerned.

2. This Court has heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The counsel for the petitioner/A.1 argues that in May, 2019, when A.1 sought bail, the Station House Officer did not accept the sureties. On the other hand, in the remand report, it is stated that the accused did not furnish the securities. Whatever transpired between the Station House Officer and the accused is not very categorically borne out by the record, but ultimately, an order dated 20.05.2019 was passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam directing the Station House Officer to accept the sureties and release him on bail. The remand report was also returned. In the said order it is recorded as follows:

"In view of the above facts and circumstances, the I.O. is directed to accept the sureties from the A.1 and release him on bail. The reasons shown in the report to remand the A. 1 are not satisfactory. Hence, the Remand Report is returned."

4. It is also noted as follows:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.I. further submits that he is ready to furnish his passport till the filing of the charge sheet."

5. Counsel for the petitioner argues that this is a part of the submission made by the counsel and is a wrong concession on a point of law. The Station House Officer has insisted on the deposit/surrender of the passport. Thereafter, an application was also filed to relax the condition imposed by the Court for deposit of the passport in terms of the order dated 20.05.2019. This application came to be dismissed by order dated 28.06.2019. Hence, the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The counsel for the petitioner argued on the basis of the law on the subject that even if the contention of the Station House Officer is taken to be correct, and this condition for deposit of passport is a part and parcel of the judicial order, it is an incorrect order and is contrary to the law on the subject. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I., 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 344 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1414, in which the it was clearly held that neither the police nor the Court have the power to seize or impound the passport. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held that while the police may have the power to seize the passport, they do not have the power to retain or impound the same. The only option left to the police, if they feel that the accused would likely to flee the country etc., is to file an application before the Passport Authorities for impounding of the passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act).

7. Basing on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the reproduced portion of the order which as mentioned above is treated as a part of the judicial order, it is contrary to the settled law. Counsel also submits that if the same is treated only as a submission made by the learned counsel, it is a submission made without being aware of the law on the subject. Even the application filed according to him for relaxation of conditions was a mistake made by the counsel without being aware of the legal position. The submission of the learned counsel is that there cannot be an estoppel against a statutory provision and that therefore, the order of the lower Court that the condition cannot be relax