ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

2. This is an application seeking permission to the petitioners 2 & 3 to travel to the United States of America (U.S.A.) to visit their children, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

3. The petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 herein have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in C.C. No. 765 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 417 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A Learned Judge of this Court, by a detailed order dated 30.03.2021, was pleased to grant interim stay of further proceedings in the said Calendar Case, including the appearance of the petitioners. An application seeking to vacate the interim orders has been filed and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the instant application has been preferred, in the circumstances as specifically asserted in the Affidavit filed in support of the I.A.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter-alia contends that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 herein are Senior Citizens and as their Passports were due to expire, they sought renewal of the same, but the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada had not processed the Renewal Application and informed them that specific orders have to be obtained from the Court to renew the same. He submits that initially they filed W.P. No. 38648 of 2022 seeking a direction to the Passport authorities to renew the Passports, but the same was withdrawn since the appropriate remedy lies before the Hon’ble Court dealing with main Criminal Petition, which has the discretion to grant permission to the concerned parties to go to abroad or NOC to leave the Country for a prescribed period. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision of a Learned Single Judge in Mohan C. Lazarus vs. Regional Passport Officer, 2021 SCC Online Madras 8142. He submits that Right to Travel is one of the facets of Personal Liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and refers to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

5. The Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 undertakes that as and when required by this Court or any other Court, they will appear before the same without fail and abide by any conditions this Court may deem fit to impose. He submits that in fact the offences alleged against the petitioners are not sustainable for the various reasons/grounds raised in the main Criminal Petition. Making the said submissions and referring to various orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 30802 of 2022 dated 26.09.2022, W.P. No. 220 of 2022 dated 08.04.2022, W.P. No. 34656 dated 19.01.2023 and W.P. No. 30286 of 2021 dated 06.05.2022 he seeks to allow the Interlocutory Application as prayed for.

6. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the said submissions and contended that the present application is not maintainable and the petitioners, if at all, have to approach the Learned Magistrate for the relief sought for and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant strenuously contended that the present application is lacking in bona fide as the petitioners’ visit to U.S.A. is for the purpose of performing second marriage of petitioner No. 1, while the marriage with the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant is subsisting and to avoid cases registered against them. While referring to the provisions of the Passports Act he submits that the petitioners instead of invoking the remedies in terms of the said Act had filed the present