`

W.P(C) No. 4835/2013

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on

: 31.07.2013

Judgment pronounced on : 05.08.2013

+

W.P.(C) 4835/2013

MANISH KUMAR MITTAL

...... Petitioner

Through: Petitioner-in-person.

versus

CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER & ANR

..... Respondents

Through: Mr Neeraj Chaudhary, Adv. for

respondents 1 and 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

The petitioner before this Court is facing trial under Section 498A

and 406 of IPC pursuant to a complaint made by his wife, which was

registered vide FIR No.1010/2006 at Police Station Dwarka, New Delhi.

The petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.G-4905048 on 26^th

September, 2007 and, according to him, while applying for the passport

he had filed an affidavit disclosing the registration of the aforesaid FIR

against him. In the above referred case registered against the petitioner,

anticipatory bail was granted to him, vide order dated 19^th November,

2009 and regular bail, vide order dated 8^th June, 2010. The bail order,

according to the petitioner, did not require him not to leave the country at

all or not to leave country without prior permission of the Court. It

2013:DHC:3852

`

W.P(C) No. 4835/2013

Page 2 of 9

appears that a complaint was made against the petitioner by his father-in-

law, seeking cancellation of his passport on the ground that the passport

had been obtained by the petitioner by concealing the pendency of the

criminal case against him. Vide communication dated 27^th October,

2010, the Regional Passport Officer directed the petitioner to surrender

the aforesaid passport. The petitioner made a representation against the

aforesaid communication dated 27^th October, 2010 and informed that

before issue of the passport, he had disclosed the pendency of the

criminal case against him. Vide communication dated 1^st March, 2011, he

was again asked to surrender his passport. He again represented to the

Regional Passport Officer. Vide communications dated 14^th March, 2011

and 25^th March, 2011, he was yet again directed to surrender his passport.

Ultimately, the passport was submitted by the petitioner to the Regional

Passport Officer on 4^th April, 2011. Since the petitioner was required by

his employer to travel to USA, he sought release of the passport.

Simultaneously, he also filed an application under RTI Act, seeking

information with respect to the order passed on his application for release

of the passport. On receipt of the documents under RTI Act, the petitioner

discovered that no order has been passed on the aforesaid application. He

also preferred an appeal to the Chief Passport Officer. However, the

appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, vide order dated 16^th

May, 2013. Being aggrieved from dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner

is before this Court.

2. A perusal of the appellate order would show that the Chief Passport

Officer was of the view that since a criminal case under Section

2013:DHC:3852

`

W.P(C) No. 4835/2013

Page 3 of 9

498A/406/34 IPC is pending against the petitioner and he is out on bail,

the passport can be restored after he is acquitted of the said charge. It

appears from a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner that the

passport of the petitioner was impounded under Section 10(3) of the

Passport Act, which, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the passport

authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or

travel document, if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to

have been committed by the holder of the passport