Ravindra Dev Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1688

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Ravindra Dev Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1715 of 2013.
Decided On : 2-09-2013

Important Points

The court considered the amicable settlement between the spouses and the petitioner's business needs in deciding to return the passport in a criminal case.

Subject

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure

Act Referred

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.451, S.457

Headnote

Passport - Criminal Procedure - The court allowed the petition challenging the order for not returning the petitioner's passport, considering the amicable settlement between the spouses and the petitioner's business needs. The court directed the trial judge to return the passport on Supurdaginama with an undertaking from the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order refusing to return his passport in a criminal case where he was facing trial for certain offenses. He claimed that the matter had been amicably settled between the spouses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no useful purpose would be served by retaining the petitioner's passport, considering the amicable settlement and the petitioner's business needs. The court allowed the petition and directed the trial judge to return the passport on Supurdaginama with an undertaking from the petitioner.

Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's passport should be returned in a criminal case where he was facing trial for certain offenses, considering the amicable settlement between the spouses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that in view of the amicable settlement and the petitioner's business needs, retaining the passport served no useful purpose. The court had previously released the petitioner's passport for a period, considering his business requirements.

Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the order refusing to return the petitioner's passport was set aside. The trial judge was directed to return the passport on Supurdaginama with an undertaking from the petitioner.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Deepak Menaria, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. - Notice was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor. He accepts notice. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Rajsamand in Regular Cr. Case No. 559/2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for returning back of his passport has been turned down.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 498A, 420 and 406 I.P.C. He submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the spouses. He has placed on record a copy of the order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand wherein it has been recorded that the parties have settled their disputes.

4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by retaining the petitioner's passport. The petitioner claims to be a businessman and earlier too this Court by order dated 3.10.2012 released the petitioner's passport for a period of 25 days permitting him to visit Dubai and Iran.

5. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand is set aside. The trial Judge is directed to return back the petitioner's passport on Supurdaginama on his furnishing an undertaking that he shall submit back the passport as and when directed by the Court.Petition allowed.

*******