ORDER :

1. While the writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the respondent impounding the passport of the petitioner, the criminal original petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Court in and by which the order of the Magistrate directing impounding of the writ petitioner's passport has been set at naught.

2. As the facts surrounding the filing of both the petitions are intertwined, on the request made by the learned counsel on either side and on the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both the matters are listed today before this Court for hearing.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner in the writ petition will be referred to as the first party and the petitioner in the criminal original petition will be referred to as the second party. The facts leading to the filing of the above petitions before this Court, is briefly stated thus :-

A private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was lodged against the 1st party by the 2nd party before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, alleging that the posts in the social media by the 1st party against the 2nd party has tarnished the image of the 2nd party in the eyes of the general public and, thereby, the 1st party has committed an offence of defamation u/s 500 IPC. The said private complaint was taken on file and assigned C.C. No.344 of 2019 and ripe for trial. Pending trial, Crl. O.P. No.11681 of 2020 was filed before this Court in which this Court had directed the court below to dispose of the case within a period of three months. In the light of the said order, Crl. M.P. No.119/2020 was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, alleging that the 1st party is likely to leave the jurisdiction of the Court as she has got an admission at York University, Canada, for the purpose of studies and, therefore, there is every likelihood of the 1st party not attending the trial and her absence would cause irreparable damage and cause hardship to the 2nd party. With the aforesaid prayer, the miscellaneous petition was filed u/s 104 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the passport authorities to impound the passport of the 1st party u/s 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1947 to prevent the 1st party from leaving India.

4. Pursuant to the said petition in Crl. M.P. No.119/2020, after hearing either side, the court below allowed the said prayer and directed the Passport authority to impound the passport of the 1st party u/s 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act until further orders.

5. Against the aforesaid order directing impounding of the passport, the 1st party filed revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. R.C. No.85/2021. The appellate court, after hearing either side, allowed the revision setting aside the order of the trial court directing impounding of the passport holding that court cannot directing impounding of the passport on a petition u/s 104 Cr.P.C.

6. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the order passed by the trial court, the passport authority, vide an email dated 8.2.2021 issued a show cause notice seeking explanation as to why action should not be taken to impound the passport of the 1st party, bearing No.Z4015275 u/s 10 (3) (e) of the Passport Act on the ground that a criminal case is pending before the Court as also u/s 12 (1)(b) of the Passport Act. On receipt of the said show cause notice, reply dated 15.3.21 was issued on which no action was taken. Thereafter, once again, vide email dated 23.8.21, another show cause notice was issued pointing to an adverse police verification report and called upon the 1st party to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken to impond the passport on account of pending criminal case against the 1st party for which reply was given by the 1st party on 24.8.21. However, without properly considering the reply of the 1st party, vide email dated 9.9.21, the impugned order, impounding the passport of the 1st party has been passed aggrieved by which