The judgment establishes the right to travel abroad as a part of personal liberty and emphasizes the need to balance this right with the requirements of ongoing criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Suvir Sehgal, J. (Oral) - CRM-26502-2022

1. Application is allowed as prayed for.

2. Affidavit dated 27.07.2022 of the petitioner along with valuation report, Annexure P-17, are taken on record on record.

Main case

3. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 02.05.2022, Annexure P-15, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar in FIR No.0204 dated 20.12.2018, Annexure P-1, registered for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City-I, Abohar, District Fazilka, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for permission to go to Australia for a period of six months to take up employment, has been rejected.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is enmeshed in matrimonial litigation and FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered by his wife-complainant-respondent No.2. He submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, which was made absolute vide order dated 03.03.2020, Annexure P-3. Still further, he submits that the investigation is complete and final report under Section 173 of the Code has been presented qua the petitioner and other accused. Counsel asserts that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia and vide order dated 18.03.2021, Annexure P-7, passed by this Court, he was granted permission, subject to conditions mentioned therein, to travel to Australia for a period of six months. The time period was extended by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021, Annexure P-10, and the petitioner returned to India on 01.01.2022 before the expiry of the extended period. He urges that despite being jobless, the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court and pursuant thereto, he is making payment of arrears of maintenance in ten monthly installments of Rs.25,000/- each. Counsel submits that the petitioner has an offer for an employment from an Australian Company, which was valid till 01.08.2022 and now has been extended till 08.08.2022. He submits that the petitioner be permitted to avail the offer and travel to Australia. By making a reference to affidavit dated 27.07.2022, counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit property papers of his father's house, which has a valuation of more than Rs.47 lacs, as security and he will abide by any other condition imposed by this Court.

5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel as well as counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 have urged that the impugned order is revisable and the present petition is not maintainable. It has been asserted that the job offer with the petitioner is not genuine and once permission is granted to the petitioner, he is not likely to return.

6. Heard counsel for the parties.

7. The issue of maintainability of the petitioner, raised by the counsel for the respondents deserves to be dealt with at the outset. Under Section 397(2) read with Section 401 of the Code, there is a specific bar to the exercise of revisional power against an interlocutory order. The question as to whether a particular order is an 'interlocutory order' has to be considered in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus M/s Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others (2001) 7 SCC 401 and K.K. Patel and another Versus State of Gujarat and another (2000)6 SCC 195. Apex Court is of the view that an 'interlocutory order' denotes order of a purely interim or temporary nature, which does not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. In other words, an interlocutory order is one which does not finally culminate the criminal proceedings. When tested on this anvil, the impugned order whereby application for permission to travel abroad has been declined, would qualify as an interlocutory order and fall within the ambit of Section