1. The question is this :-

Can the High Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C quash an order issued by the Regional Passport Officer ?

2. The second respondent is the Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. His order impounding the petitioner's passport is annex-A6. The same is sought to be quashed. The relief is sought under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The facts are simple and admitted. Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.783/2012 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, First Class, Attingal. The petitioner and seven others were charged under Sec.498A of the IPC read with IPC 34. His former wife was the first informant. The petitioner works in UAE. He holds an Indian passport. His passport was impounded by the second respondent. Pendency of the above criminal case is the reason stated in annex-A6 order to impound the passport. This order is sought to be quashed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor too.

5. Section 482 Cr.P.C reads thus :-

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

6. Section 482 saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. This part of the section has no application in the instant case. The Crl.M.C is filed not to get any order under the Cr.P.C given effect to. Annex-A6 is not an order passed under any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

7. The High Court may under Sec.482 pass any order to prevent abuse of the process of any court. This part of the section too has no application here. Annex-A6 is an executive order. It cannot be said that such an order, if not quashed, would amount to abuse of the process of any court.

8. The words "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" appearing at the end of Sec.482 cannot be interpreted to mean that the High Court can thereunder interfere with any order passed by any authority. Those words should be read ejusdem generis with the words preceding those words. The learned Assistant Solicitor General has drawn my attention to the preamble of Cr.P.C. It reads "an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure". Annex- A6 order has nothing to do with the criminal procedure. Inherent powers are saved, and not granted, under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. The inherent powers do not extend to interfere with an executive order like annex-A6. Such an executive order is quite outside the purview of the Cr.P.C.

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sec.482 Cr.P.C is attracted since annex-A6 order was passed in view of the pendency of a criminal case in which the petitioner is an accused. The argument is not acceptable. The order impugned must be one made in a criminal proceedings to attract Sec.482. The inherent powers can be exercised only in relation to judicial matters pending in any court or which may ultimately reach a criminal court. The power cannot be exercised to interfere with an order passed by an executive authority.

10. A division bench of the Madras High Court has gone deep into the question. The decision is K. Rajamanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015 (3) Mad.Weekly Notes (Crl) 379). The precise question considered was whether a High Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C could interfere with an order of an appropriate government passed under Sec.432 of the Cr.P.C. The Madras High Court concluded that although the power of the appropriate government to suspend or remit sentences flows from Sec.432 Cr.P.C an order passed thereunder, being in exercise of the executive power, cannot be interfered with under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I place reliance on the said decision.

11. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The lea