Permission to go abroad during trial should not be declined unless there are reasons to believe that such permission is being sought for oblique considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer :

"To allow the present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the directions in the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Court of Ms. Sushila Bala Dagar, MM, Mahila Court, North West, Rohini, Delhi in FIR No. 118/2016 U/s 498A/406/34 IPC with PS Bharat Nagar whereby petitioners were restrained from leaving the country without seeking the permission and informing the court and consequently denying the permission to leave the country vide order dated 16.07.2018 passed by Ms. Akansha Vyas, MM, Mahila Court, North West and thereby upheld vide order dated 23.08.2018 by Shri Virender Bhatt, Ld. ASJ, North West, Rohini Delhi in the interest of justice."

2. On 11.07.2008, marriage between the son of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and ceremony. Thereafter on 26.07.2008, respondent No. 2 and son of the petitioners went to United Kingdom and started living there as husband and wife. On 17.12.2015, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners in CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi and on 18.12.2015, respondent No. 2 further filed a divorce petition bearing HMA No. 1018/15 against the son of the petitioners.

3. On 18.02.2016, the petitioner's counsel informed the Addl. Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell that son of the petitioners had already filed a divorce petition in United Kingdom as both of them i.e. their son and respondent No. 2 are British citizens. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR bearing No. 0118/16 U/s 498A/406/34 IPC at police station Bharat Nagar, Delhi on 26.02.2016. The petitioners were later on granted bail by the Trial Court in the said FIR.

4. On 22.12.2016, respondent No. 2 withdrew the divorce case filed by her in India before Family Court as a divorce decree was passed on 06.09.2017 by English Court dissolving the marriage between the son of the petitioners and respondent No. 2.

5. The Ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued on the lines of her petition. On the other hand, it has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State with counsel for respondent No. 2 that son of the petitioners namely Rohit Rohela has not joined the investigation and L.O.C. has already been opened against him. It is further argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the petitioners want to visit U.K. to meet their son so there is every likelihood that they will not return to India to face the prosecution against them.

6. The petitioners were denied the permission to leave the country vide order dated 16.07.2018 passed by Ms. Akansha Vyas, MM, Mahila Court, North West and this order was challenged by the petitioners before the Ld. ASJ who also vide order dated 23.08.2018 declined permission to the petitioners to visit U.K.

7. It is seen from the record that the petitioners have joined the investigation as and when directed by the IO. In my opinion, the petitioners who are senior citizens and want to visit their son in U.K. cannot be held as a bait to catch their son so that he appears in the case and face trial in FIR bearing No. 118/2016 U/s 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar.

8. Permission to go abroad during trial should not invariably be declined unless there are reasons to believe that such permission is being sought for oblique considerations. In Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar v. State of Punjab 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 201, in somewhat similar circumstances, where a person was facing the criminal trial and was declined permission to go abroad, as the accused was facing trial in case under Section 420 , 406, 403, 34 IPC, the accused was allowed to go abroad and the Court observed as under:-

"3. Heard.

The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, as applies in this country, is that every person is innocent till proved guilty and further that the Court presumes a human being to behave normally and this presumption continues till such time it is proved to the contrary. The f