IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13276 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

SREEJITH RAVENDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN, MOOLESSERIL HOUSE, KUTHIRA PANTHY P.O., THAZHAVA , NOW WORKING AND RESIDING AT AUSTRALIA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. REVEENDRAN, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOOLESSERIL HOUSE,KUTHIRA PANTHY P.O., THAZHAVA , KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 523 BY ADVS.

K.SIJU KAMALASANAN S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110 001

2 THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024

3 PASSPORT ISSUING AUTHORITY, PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA, S.N TRUST COMPLEX, NEAR KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, VELLAPPALY NAGAR, KOLLAM PIN-691 320

4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OACHIRA POLICE STATION, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM-690 526 BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA ADV.SRI.JAYASANKAR – CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who says that he is employed and settled in Australia from the year 2010, has approached this Court seeking that his passport, bearing No.J-8639387, be directed to be renewed without requiring him to obtain orders from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, before which a crime against him is pending as CC No.3257/2020.

2. The petitioner says that he is making the afore request because he intends to return to India and face the consequences before the Magistrate's Court; but that he is unable to do so: firstly, on account of the expiry of his passport; and secondly, because of the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, which have now inhibited travel between two countries. He submits that if he is given a minimum period of six months extension for his passport, he will be able to return to India and face the processes before the learned Magistrate's Court.

3. The learned Central Government Counsel –

Sri.Jayasankar Nair, in response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Smt.Anjana Kannath, submitted that if this Court is considering extension of the petitioner's passport only for the purpose of facilitating his travel back to India to face charges in Ext.P2 FIR, then the Authorities will not stand in the way. He, however, prayed that this Court may make it clear that this order is being issued in the specific circumstances involved and that it will not operate as a precedent because, in normal circumstances, it is only after the accused gets necessary clearance from the competent Magistrate's Court, will his/her passport be renewed.

4. There is no doubt, going by the submissions of Sri.Jayasankar Nair, that, as a rule, this Court would not have considered extension of the passport of the petitioner without orders from the competent Criminal Court. However, what I see in this case is that Ext.P2 FIR has been registered against the petitioner by his wife, imputing charges under Sections 323 and 324, read with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously, therefore, even if the petitioner has to face these charges and stand trial before the Magistrate's Court, he will have to obtain extension of his passport, so as to enable him to travel to India.

In the afore circumstances and solely to ensure that petitioner is able to travel to India to appear before the Trial Court appropriately, I direct the competent respondent to grant him extension of passport for a period of six months; however, on condition that if he does not reach India within this time, they will be at liberty to ensure further action, including for impounding of same. I make it reiteratingly clear that this order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner, but only to ensur