Hari Pal Verma, J.:-

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is for quashing of order dated 6.5.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak and the order dated 20.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. On 28.5.2015, after recording the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued to the State.

3. At the time of hearing i.e. on 28.5.2015, Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate had put in appearance of behalf of the complainant. However, today, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

4. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was inducted as a Director of M/s. Jop International Limited, 45/77, Panjabi Bag, West, New Delhi, but has falsely been implicated in FIR No. 32 dated 3.2.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. Her parents namely Mr. Bharat Aggarwal (father) and Mrs. Shyama Aggarwal (mother) are the other Directors of the company. The petitioner is pursuing her course of Master of Science in Marketing Management from ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain and her examinations are scheduled in June, 2015. Since there was an FIR against the petitioner as well as her parents, her passport was seized. Since the petitioner is studying abroad, therefore, in order to appear in her examination scheduled in June, 2015, the petitioner moved an application before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak for the release of her passport on supurdari and further sought permission to travel Spain to complete her ongoing studies. However, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 6.5.2015, dismissed the said application.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2015, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The revision petition was also dismissed, vide order dated 20.5.2015, with the observations that no schedule of examination or any other details have been furnished.

6. It is against the aforesaid orders dated 6.5.2015 and 20.5.2015, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bona fide on the part of the petitioner is duly established from the fact that the FIR was registered on 3.2.2015 and the petitioner who was pursuing her studies in Spain, came back to India on 25.4.2015 to join and cooperate the investigations. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 16.3.2015. Learned counsel further argued that the investigating officer never summoned her, as there was nothing to investigate, especially when all the evidence, which was documentary in nature, was already with the police. Even the application seeking cancellation of bail was also dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2015. Learned counsel further submits that though there was no requirement to seize the passport of the petitioner, but still her passport was seized and therefore, the petitioner could not fly back to Spain to pursue her studies, as per the schedule of the college. In this manner, she has lost three valuable weeks of her final semester of the Master of Science in Marketing Management and could not attend classes.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide student and she does not intend to stay in Spain for the period beyond the schedule of examination. He further submits that since the examinations are fixed somewhere in June, 2015, the petitioner be released her passport and she be permitted to leave the country upto 31st August, 2015 and in any case, she would report back on or before 1.9.2015. It has been further contended that this Court may put any conditions, which are practical and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. However, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any discretion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document