Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SAJI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10697 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SAKEENA BEEGUM, SRI.C.K.RAPHEEQUE, SRI.K.B.NIDHINKUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
A court's lack of jurisdiction under specific statutes prevents it from issuing orders on matters of passport renewal amidst ongoing criminal allegations.
Headnote:The court considered the application for passport renewal amidst pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Relevant statutes include Sections 331(3) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court found the Magistrate's order to be justified as no empowering provision existed for a declaratory order on passport renewal. The issues revolved around the appropriateness of limiting the petitioner's travel rights based on current allegations. The Court reasoned the petitioner retains the right to respond to the show cause notice and explore legal remedies.
Result: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of, reserving the petitioner's right to seek remedies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consideration of passport renewal amidst ongoing crimes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. acknowledgment of petitioner's right to respond to authorities. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. justification of the magistrate's order due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 10697 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.604/2025 registered by the Thrikkakara Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 3 31 (3) and 305(a) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.
2. The petitioner asserts that he had submitted an application to reissue his passport. Surprisingly, the 3rd respondent has issued Annexure B show cause notice directing him to show cause why he had suppressed the fact regarding the pendency of two crimes against him and why the passport shall not be impounded. Immediately, the petitioner filed Annexure C application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad to direct the 3rd respondent to renew the passport. However, by Annexure D order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application. Annexure D order is cryptic and non speaking. Hence Annexure D may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned DSGI appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The materials on record reveal that the 3rd respondent has initiated independent proceedings against the petitioner for impounding his passport on the ground that he has suppressed the fact that he is an accused in two crimes.
5. Indisputably, there is no substantive provision empowering the learned Magistrate to direct the 3rd respondent to renew the passport. The 3rd respondent has issued the show cause notice as per the Passport Manual. It is in the said circumstances that the learned Magistrate dismissed Annexure C application, for the reason he is not empowered to pass a declaratory order as sought in Annexure C application. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order warranting exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.
6. Nonetheless, the learned DSGI submits that, it would be upto the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and, if so advised, also file an application for permission to travel abroad. The above submission is recorded.
In view of the above submission, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of, by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. sd/-
