JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2024 The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent-Passport Officer has directed the petitioner to surrender the Passport based on the alleged adverse inputs from the police. According to the petitioner, she has been falsely implicated as an accused in Crime No.92/2011 of Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode and in Crime No.766/2012 of CB Kozhikode Police Station.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner holds invitation for business meeting abroad and seeks the Court’s intervention to direct the release of her Passport for a month. The petitioner’s Passport was surrendered long ago. Unless this Court directs the 2nd respondent to release the Passport for a period of one month, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kozhikode filing Ext.P9 C.M.P No.866/2024 in C.C.No.206/2012 seeking release of Passport so as to enable the petitioner to go abroad for a period of two months. The Court has not passed any orders on the C.M.P on the ground that the Passport was surrendered pursuant to the directions of the Regional Passport Officer.

4. Senior Panel Counsel representing the Central Government resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner obtained Passport through a Tatkal Scheme application. Material facts of pendency of criminal cases were suppressed in the application. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner was issued notice. The petitioner voluntarily surrendered her Passport. Now, in the absence of any Court Order, the petitioner cannot go abroad. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended the Senior Panel Counsel.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the 2nd respondent.

6. From Ext.P1, it is seen that the petitioner has been accused of offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 477(A), 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 would indicate that the dispute / offence arises out of transactions of an Incorporated Company, in which the petitioner is a Director. The complaint has been filed at the instance of another Director of the Company.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered whether the petitioner can be permitted to go abroad for business meeting. The petitioner submits that the petitioner’s daughter is abroad and the petitioner wants to meet her daughter also.

The learned Magistrate will not be justified in not entertaining the application for the sole reason that the Passport has been surrendered at the instance of the Passport Officer. Even for the Passport Officer to act and release the Passport, order of the competent Criminal Court granting permission is required.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kozhikode then the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take up Ext.P9 C.M.P and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. Similarly, if the petitioner files C.M.P in Crime No.766/2012 pending in the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode, the Court shall consider the C.M.P, on merits and pass appropriate orders.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15330/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED

31-08-2023 IN CRIME NO.92/2011 BEFORE THE CJM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED NIL IN CRIME NO.766/2012 BEFORE THE JFCM-III, Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO. X2698996 RENEWED WITH THE VALIDITY FROM

07.02.2024 TO 06.02.2034.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

20.03.2024 Exhi