JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Arjuna Charan Das has filed this criminal revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole in G.R. Case No.1201 of 2015 arising out of Balichandrapur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2015 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for permission for renewal of his passport on the ground that the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under sections 498-A/494/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was initiated at the instance of his wife and that the petitioner has not come to the picture in the case nor appeared in the case nor yet arrested and he may abscond.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Sujata Jena challenging the impugned order submitted that the petitioner is an IT Professional working as a Senior Software Engineer in MPHASIS and posted at Bangalore and as an IT professional, he was holding a passport which expired on 12.02.2017. It is further contended that as per the notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India dated 25.08.1993 vide G.S.R. 570(E) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, any passport issued can be further renewed only on the basis of the fresh order of the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending against the applicant.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an accused in Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.173 of 2015 which was initiated on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by his wife before the Inspector in Charge of Balichandrapur Police Station on 03.12.2015 and a case under sections 498-A/494 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.

During course of investigation, apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached this Court in an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in ABLAPL No.19709 of 2015 and vide order dated 11.04.2016, the anticipatory bail application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by the Investigating Officer in the event of his arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ground of rejection of the petition by the learned Magistrate is illegal and erroneous and since the petitioner is on anticipatory bail and final form has not yet been submitted and he has not received any summons from the Court, there was no justification for his appearance before the learned Magistrate. She further contended that there was no material before the Magistrate to observe that the petitioner may abscond.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the provisions under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport, inter alia, if any proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is pending before the criminal Court in India. The Passport Application Form which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs as per form No. EA (P)-13 indicates in Column No.8 that the applicant has to indicate if he was ever charged with criminal proceedings or any arrest warrant/summon is pending before a Court in India and if the answer is ‘yes’, then the applicant will fill in Column No.7.1 of the Supplementary Form which indicates that if there are any criminal proceedings/warrant pending against the applicant then written permission from the Court is to be attached to depart from India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of such provision, the learned Magistrate should not have rejected the petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission for renewal of his passport which has resulted in causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same should be set aside.

3. Mr. Anup Kumar Bose, learned Assistant Solici