In a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's application to quash an order of the Judicial Magistrate that impounded the passport of an accused person.
Petition to quash the order impounding the accused's passport was dismissed with no finding on the merits of the quashing application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 91 of 2010()
---------------------------------CMP.NO.2478 OF 2009 IN ST.NO.1745 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD.
PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------
KALATHIL ABU, KALATHIL HOUSE, AGED 62 YEARS, KONNARAM, THIRUVIZHAKMUNNU POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, THRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.S.ABDUL SALAM
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KALATHIL ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED (LATE) KALATHIL HOUSE, KONNARAM, THIRUVIZHAKUNNU POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R2 &R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 91 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 12th day of January,2010
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A3 order filed by the petitioner under section 10 (3)(2) of Passport Act to impound the passport of the first respondent the accused. The argument of the learned counsel is that the accused is not co-operating, eventhough the case has been pending for the last two years and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have impounded the passport. It is also submitted that in any case the findings on the
merits of the case in Annexure 3 order is unwarranted and is to be quashed.
Nanda v. C.B.I (AIR 2008 SC 1414), a passport
can be impounded only by the authority provided
Crl.M.C.91/2010 2
under the Passport Act and cannot be impounded by the learned Magistrate. Therefore learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the application. Hence I find no reason to interfere with Annexure 3 order. Though learned counsel sought to quash the findings in the order on merit, it is not necessary for this court to consider the case. As the case is to be tried by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Judge shall not be bound by the findings in Annexure A3 order.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C).NO. /06
--------------------JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the Pass Court order impounding the passport of the accused person.
Whether the Magistrate under section 482 CrPC had the power to impound the passport.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Nanda v. C.B.IApplied¶28
AIR 2008 SC 1414 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
KALATHIL ABU
KALATHIL ABDUL RASHEED
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
