Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, J.
Sudesh Rani - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 11303-2020
Decided On : 29-01-2021
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, DAG, Punjab, Ms. Shweta Nahata, Advocate, for the Respondent
Passport cannot be cancelled merely on the fact that an FIR is pending against the petitioner.
Headnote:
Passport - Petition seeking withdrawal of notice and not to surrender passport - Sections 323/324/34 IPC, Sections 341/324/34/120-B IPC - Judgment discusses the interpretation of passport issuance and cancellation based on pending and concluded criminal cases. Court relies on previous cases to establish that passport cannot be cancelled merely on the fact that an FIR is pending against the petitioner. The court allows the writ petition and quashes the notice dated 11.02.2020, preventing further cancellation or withdrawal of the petitioner's passport.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner seeks withdrawal of notice dated 11.02.2020 and not to surrender her passport issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner is a complainant in F.I.R No. 84/2010 and F.I.R No. 63/2018. The trial in F.I.R. No. 84/2010 has been concluded, and a cancellation report has been filed in F.I.R No. 63/2018. The passport authority issued a notice based on the pending F.I.Rs.
Finding of the Court:
The court allows the writ petition and quashes the notice dated 11.02.2020, preventing further cancellation or withdrawal of the petitioner's passport.
Issues: Petitioner seeking withdrawal of notice and not to surrender passport based on concluded and pending criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: Passport cannot be cancelled merely on the fact that an FIR is pending against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and notice dated 11.02.2020 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 shall not proceed further to cancel or withdraw the passport of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). - Petitioner is seeking issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to withdraw notice dated 11.02.2020 (P-l) in view of reply dated 18.07.2020 (P-2). Further prayer of the petitioner is not to ask her to surrender her passport bearing No. U2488469 dated 21.01.2020 issued by respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner is complainant in F.I.R No. 84/2010 registered under Sections 323/324/34 IPC at P.S. Sadar Kapurthala on the basis of which passport authority has issued notice dated 11.02.2020.
3. On notice of the petition, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3 stating therein that the trial in F.I.R. No. 84 dated 11.09.2010 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC has been concluded by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2017 and the accused were acquitted. Further, in F.I.R No. 63 dated 09.06.2018 under Sections 341/324/34/120-B IPC registered against the petitioner by Ved Prakash, cancellation report has been submitted before the learned trial Court and thus the report was sent as NOT CLEAR to the Passport Office. In F.I.R No. 84, a cross version was registered by the petitioner but now the case has been concluded.
4. In the short reply filed by respondent No. 2, it has been stated that petitioner applied for re-issuance of passport in lieu of previous passport bearing number J-0074043 dated 02.08.2010. The application of the petitioner was processed and was re-issued and was valid up to 20.01.2030. The same was submitted for police verification report. In response to the above, an adverse police verification report was received against the petitioner having remarks "F.I.R No. 84/2010 registered under Sections 323/324 IPC at P.S. Sadar Kapurthala, is pending in the Court. After receiving the police verification report, the case of the petitioner was re-referred to Sr.S.P Kapurthala and the police authorities submitted their report vide No. 1257-C.P.R.C dated 24.12.2020 with remarks "Case against the petitioner is pending before the trial Court and hence not recommended". However, the passport bearing No. U2488469 is still with the petitioner and the same has not been impounded by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was only asked to surrender the passport.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon judgment of this Court in a case of Sahib Jaskaran Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (2) R.C.R (Crl) 798 wherein it has been held that passport cannot be refused or cancelled only on the ground of registration of an F.I.R. The passport was ordered to be released.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of this Court in a case of Daler Singh vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 12143-2015, decided on 01.10.2015 wherein petitioner was seeking direction to respondent No. 1 and 2 to issue him a passport, which has been withheld on a complaint made by respondent No. 3. The writ petition was disposed of and observed as under :-
"In Tarsem Singh's case (supra), this Court dealt with a matter of re-issue of passport to the petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the Trial Court. Appeal against conviction and sentence filed by him was pending, wherein, his sentence was suspended. The objection of the respondent was that the petitioner had not disclosed about his conviction in a criminal case at the time of police verification. Later on, the petitioner filed affidavit mentioning these facts. In these circumstances, this Court directed the Passport Officer to issue the passport to the petitioner, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall take necessary permission by filing application before the Court to go abroad.
In Surinder Pal Singh's case (supra), a case under Sections 427/506/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner. Report under Section 173 CrPC had been filed and even the charge was also framed against him
