Disposed

M/S Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Bajaj Finserv) v. the Sub Inspector of Police.

Kerala HC14 Jul 2016WP(C)/23354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition seeking direct orders to prevent the respondent from leaving India. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to inform passport authorities under the relevant provisions of the Passport Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move the Magistrate to address the Passport Authority to impound or suspend the 2nd respondent's passport.

M/S Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Bajaj Finserv)… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23354 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (BAJAJ FINSERV), 3RD FLOOR, DD TRADE TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL-COLLECTIONS), MS.JINCY JOHN, AGED 32, D/O. K.L.JOHN, KULANGARA HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 575. BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE SRI.V.SRI NATH

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

*** 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.[CORRECTED]**

¶10

THE ADDRESS OF THE R1 IS CORRECTED AS

¶11

'THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31.

¶12

*** AS PER ORDER DATED 14.07.2016 IN IA 11283/16.]**

¶13

2. MR. RAJESH PRABHAKARAN, THE PROPRIETOR, M/S.GREENWICH AUTOMOBILES, FLAT NO.1184, EMRALD PARK, MIR GREEN METROPOLIS, AMBADIMOOLA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 23354 of 2016 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 28.10.2015.

¶21

P2 A COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS CRL.MP NO.1666/2016 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.942/2016 OF ERNAKULAM POLICE STATION.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

----------------------------------------

¶30

W.P.(C) No.23354 of 2016

¶31

-----------------------------------------

¶32

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1.This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to complete the investigation of the Exhibit P3 Crime No.942/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station expeditiously and submit the Final Report, within a specified time period.

¶36

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to take immediate and necessary steps to prevent the 2^nd respondent from leaving India, at least till the investigation in the Exhibit P3 Crime No.942/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station has been completed and the filing of the Final Report before the concerned Magistrate Court.”

¶37

2.At the instance of the petitioner , Ext.P3 crime was registered against the 2^nd respondent for the offence

¶38

under sections 420 and 468 of the IPC. The petitioner

¶39

apprehends that the 2^nd respondent would flee the

¶40

W.P.(C) 23354/2016 2

¶41

Country and prays that 1^st respondent be directed to take immediate and necessary steps to prevent the 2^nd respondent from evading the process of law .

¶42

3.Heard the learned prosecutor as well.

¶43

4.It is borne out from the records that the case was referred to the Police on a Complaint filed by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ernakulam.

¶44

This Court in Shanavas Babu V State of Kerala and Others 2012 (3) KLT 701 has held that the learned Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending can address the Passport Authorities informing them of the pendency of criminal proceedings to initiate proceedings for impounding / suspending / revoking of the passport of the accused. Referring to the Judgement of the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBI ( 2008 (3) SCC 674 ) it was held that the Court

¶45

W.P.(C) 23354/2016

¶46

¶47

can only intimate the authorities of the circumstances covered by S.10(3)(e) or (h) of the Act, for taking appropriate steps for impounding / suspending / revoking of the passport or travel document . This can be done against the holder of a passport against whom proceedings are pending in relation to any offence committed, or warrant or summons for appearance or arrest, or prohibitory orders leaving the country, as the case may be, has been issued or ordered by the Court. It is for the said authority to pass appropriate orders on its satisfaction for passing such orders as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶48

6.In view of the above , this petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate to address the Passport Authority as indicated above. On such application being filed the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

¶49

W.P.(C) 23354/2016

¶50

¶51

and expeditiously taking express notice of the urgency

¶52

highlighted by the petitioner.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶54

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶55