Direction To Return Passports Of Wife And Son As Condition For Release Of Man’s Passport Is Completely Illegal: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the direction to return the passports of wife and son as a condition for the release of a man’s passport is completely illegal.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “The direction to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport was completely illegal. As regards the passport of the son, it is taken care of as the appellant has followed the prescribed procedure in USA regarding lost passports. The condition of returning the passport of the 4th respondent could not have been imposed at all as the act of the Passport Officer of retaining the appellant’s passport was completely illegal.”
The Bench said that it failed to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case.
Advocate Shreeyash U. Lalit appeared for the appellant while ASG K.M. Nataraj and Advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the dispute involved in the appeals concerned the return of the passport of the appellant but the same was an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the 4th respondent i.e., his wife. The appellant was an accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and during the course of the investigation, the Police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.PC. calling upon him to produce his passport.
The appellant made an application to the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate–cum– Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, and pleaded that he had a fundamental right to travel abroad conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. He pointed out in the application that he needs to go back to the USA to attend his job but the said application was opposed by his wife. The said application was dismissed and thereafter, another application made by the appellant was rejected by the High Court.
The Supreme Court in the above regard noted, “… the exercise of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal. Thereafter, the passport was never impounded in exercise of power under Section 10 of the PP Act. There is nothing on record to show that the passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport.”
The Court said that the wife can make an application in a prescribed form to the competent regional officer for the reissue of the passport and if the validity of the passport has expired and the period provided for renewal thereof has expired, she can apply for a fresh passport.
“If the 4th respondent wants some documents from the appellant only for the purposes of filing an application for the reissue of the passport or for grant of a fresh passport, the appellant shall cooperate by doing the needful. … It will be open for the 4th respondent to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office in prescribed format for the reissue of her passport or for grant of a fresh passport”, directed the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeals.
Cause Title- Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 645)
