Allowed

Ashok Kumar Chaddha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2025A482/43745/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the release of the applicant's passport, which had been seized by the police during a criminal investigation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the right to travel abroad, the Court directed the release of the passport subject to conditions, setting aside the trial court's order denying release.

What did the court decide?

Passport released to the applicant against a valid receipt within two days; Court records 'no objection' to renewal.

Ashok Kumar Chaddha Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22699

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43745 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Chaddha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey,Suresh Chandra Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record.

¶7

By means of present application, the applicant has approached this Court seeking a direction to the police to release his passport by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Case No.6524 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2016, under Section 420 IPC read with Section 66 I.T Act and Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, registered at P.S. Phase 3, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

In brief, the facts are that an FIR bearing Case Crime No.302 of 2016, u/s 420 IPC read with Section 66 of I.T. Act and Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 has been registered against the applicant at P.S. Phase-III on 21.3.2016, and during the investigation, the applicant's passport was seized by the police. The applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6651 of 2016 for quashing the aforesaid FIR and the same was disposed of with the direction that the police shall not take any coercive action against the applicant till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant was also given liberty to move the appropriate application before the trial

¶9

Court for release of his passport after submission of police report.

¶10

On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet bearing no. 3 of 2017 was filed on 2.2.2017, u/s 420 IPC read with section 66 of the I.T. Act, and Section 2 of the Prevention of the Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The applicant challenged the impugned summoning order 8.3.2017 and the charge sheet referred to herein above by way of an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.9347 of 2018. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed to connect the aforesaid application along with application u/s 482 No.6885 of 2018 and further directed "till the next date of listing, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case" , since then no effective proceedings has taken place in the application under Section 482 No. 9347 of 2018. As no coercive action could be taken against the applicant, the trial Court proceedings have been kept standstill since then.

¶11

The applicant moved an application before the trial Court to seek direction to the police to release the applicant's passport as the applicant has to travel abroad to depose as a witness in a suit pending trial before the Lower Court, Rottweil Germany, between Jain Natural Energy Private Limited and Christian Schmid Zepplinstrabe and others, and placed reliance upon a letter dated 25.12.2024, issued by one Thorsten Sainder Rechtsanwalte to the applicant through Jain Natural Energy Pvt. Ltd. The application was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2021 (the order is not annexed with the application). Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2021, the applicant preferred a revision, and the same was allowed vide order dated 05.01.2023 with a direction that the applicant shall appear before the trial court and then press for

¶12

reconsideration of the release of passport before the trial court. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Buddh Nagar, deferred the hearing on the applicant's application filed in compliance with an order dated 05.01.2023, passed by the Revisional Court, till the framing of the charge but dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 12.04.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that (i) as the applicant is a necessary witness in a suit pending trial before the Lower Court Rottweil Germany and, since the police have seized his passport, cannot travel abroad to depose in a pending suit, (ii) the Supreme Court in series of judgments has held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a person from exercising his right to travel abroad and such right could only be curtailed in exceptional circumstances in accordance with the procedure established by law, and further relied upon Menka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , and Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 3 SCC 674 and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77 , (iii) the police may have the power to seize the passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C., but it does not have power to retain and to impound the same because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. If the police seizes a passport, thereafter, the police must send it along with a letter to the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Passport Act.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. submits that pursuant to an investigation, a charge sheet dated 02.02.2017 has been filed against the applicant for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420

¶15

IPC read with Section 66 of the I.T. Act, and Section 2 of the Prevention of the Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and since then the applicant is facing trial. There is apprehension that the applicant may not return to the country if he is allowed to go abroad and may flee from the process of law.

¶16

Based on aforesaid deliberations and after going through the judgment referred by the applicant's counsel, this Court directs the Commissioner of Police Gautam Buddh Nagar to release the applicant's passport no. Z3143893 to him against a valid receipt within two days of receipt of a copy of this order, and this Court shall have "no objection" in case the applicant's passport no. Z3143893 is renewed for five years by the competent authority as per the rules prescribed in this regard. For clarity, this Court has "no objection" if the Passport Authority chooses to renew the applicant's passport at his request.

¶17

8.1. The applicant shall file the travel itinerary along with the mobile number on which he shall be available during traveling abroad, place of residence and details before the trial Court before leaving the country by way of an affidavit.

¶18

8.2. It goes without saying that the competent Passport Issuing Authority may consider the applicant's request for renewal of passport on its own merit and in accordance with the notifications or government orders issued from time to time in this regard.

¶19

Thus, the instant application is allowed in the aforesaid terms, and the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 is set aside.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.2.2025/Jitendra

¶21

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Chaddha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Chaddha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases