IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the passport authority to impound passports under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Sec. 10(3)(e) and Sec. 10(3)(h), and the necessity to follow the procedure established by law and principles of natural justice, as emphasized in the judgment of Suresh L.Nanda v CBI (2008).

JUDGMENT

SUREPALLI NANDA,J. - Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the 1st and 3rd respondents, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4th and 5th respondents, and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th and 7th respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order, orders or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as arbitrary and illegal and direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to impound the passports of respondent Nos.6 and 7 vide passport No.K079406 and Z2887031.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The Petitioner's daughter Anusha Reddy got married with the 6th respondent on 30/12/2011 as per Rights and Customs prevailing in Christian Community. At the time of marriage, as per demand of respondent Nos.6 and 7 and their parents, the petitioner gave 100 tolas of gold and diamond Jewellery, registered Ac.17.00 of land at Sadasivapet, Medak District and 666 Syds of open plot at Hi-Tech city, Madhapur.

b) After the marriage, respondent Nos.6 and 7 and their parents demanded for additional dowry and necked out the petitioner's daughter from their house. On 24/3/2016 the petitioner's daughter filed a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No. 208/2016 on 28/3/2016, which was immediately taken up for investigation.

c) After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against respondent Nos.6 and 7 and their parents. However, upon registering the crime, respondent Nos.6 and 7 neither obtained bail nor appeared before the Investigation Officer. During the course of investigation, notices u/s 41(A) Cr. P.C. were issued, but respondent Nos.6 and 7 failed to appear before the Investigation Officer. Hence, absconding charge sheet was filed. Subsequently, vide C.C.No. 378/2016 was registered and warrants were issued.

d) The 6th respondent is having passport vide No. K0709406 issued by Consulate General of India, San Francisco on 16/8/2011 and the same was valid up to 15/8/2021, and the 7threspondent is having passport vide no.Z2887031 issued by Passport Officer.

e) Upon issuing the non-bailable warrant against respondent Nos. 6&7 in C.C. No. 378/2016, the Investigation Officer wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent on 29/8/2016 requesting him to impound the passport of respondent Nos.6 & 7. Subsequently, on 20/9/2016 a letter was sent by the 2nd respondent to Investigation Officer, WPS, CCS stating that they have sent show cause notice to respondent no.6 and 7 and also informed that they sent a letter to Consulate General of India, USA for necessary action.

f) Later on, the 6threspondent filed a divorce application against the petitioner's daughter vide FCOP No. 79/2016 and in the said application the father of 6th respondent had represented before the Hon'ble court. Since the 6threspondent never appeared before the Family Court, the said divorce application was dismissed.

g) Meanwhile, the 6th respondent filed an application for evidence through video conference and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the 6threspondent filed revision before this court vide CRP No.738/2019 and the same was dismissed.

h) Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are well aware that the proceedings in C.C. 378/2016 are pending for adjudication, but they failed to appear before the court. This shows that the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are avoiding the proceedings on purpose. Thus, several requests were made to the 2nd Respondents to initiate action against the respondent nos. 6 and 7 by impounding their passport. However, no action has been taken till date. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 7, reads as under:

a) The petitioner herein is neither the de-facto complainant nor the prosecutor of the crimin