JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Keshav Murthy, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party and Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 21.01.2021 contained in Annexure-4 in Complaint Case No.1839/2015 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau. The further prayer is made for direction upon the concerned court to forthwith release the passport of the petitioner.

4. The complaint cases, being Complaint Case No.1833/2015 and Complaint Case No.1839/2015 were lodged against the petitioner in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau for the offences punishable under section 420 IPC read with section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the aforesaid cases, cognizance against the petitioner was taken vide order dated 04.07.2016 and thereafter the discharge application filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.06.2019. The same was challenged before this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C in the criminal proceeding being Cr.M.P.No.2635/2017 and Cr.M.P.No.2655/2017. The said Cr.M.Ps were decided by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2019 whereby the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid complaint cases lodged against the petitioner were quashed. The petitioner after quashing of the said order, moved before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau for release of the passport in view of the fact that the criminal proceeding have been quashed. The respondent no.2-complainant was also heard in that application and by order dated 06.01.2020 the learned court has been pleased to direct the release of the passport in favour of the petitioner.

5. The complainant respondent no.2 preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.252-253-2020 arising out of final judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.2635/2017 and Cr.M.P.No.2655/2017. The said Special Leave Petition was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.01.2020 whereby notices were issued upon the petitioner by the even dated order.

6. After passing of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant respondent no.2 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau to retain the passport as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By order dated 21.01.2020 the learned Magistrate directed not to release the passport of the petitioner till further order.

7. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

8. Mr. Keshav Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 on the ground that the concerned court has already passed the order of release on 06.01.2020 and by order dated 21.01.2020 directing not to release the passport of the petitioner amounts to review of the order passed by the concerned court which is barred under section 362 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Passport Act is special law while the Cr.P.C is general law. Impounding of the passport is provided under section 10(3) of Passport Act. According to him, it is well settled principle of law that special law prevails over general law. He further submitted that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the order dated 06.01.2020 was not disclosed by the complainant and that is why the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order to file any objection in the concerned court. He further submitted that the case against the petitioner