Allowed

Noushad.a. v. Detective Inspector

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022Crl.MC/5682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's Criminal Misc. Case challenging an order denying passport permission. The Court held that since no final report was filed after 19 years, criminal proceedings were not pending, and the petitioner could not be denied travel abroad under the Passport Act.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the petitioner is permitted to obtain a passport for one year subject to a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and an undertaking

Noushad.a. Vs Detective Inspector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.5682/2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 5682 OF 2022

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCMP 437/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.20:

¶7

NOUSHAD.A. AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF ABDUL KABEER, NOUFIYA MANZIL, KOCHUKUNNUMPURAM, VALIYA VAZHI, KAITHODU P.O., NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 535.

¶8

BY ADV.S.R.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT, STATE & CONCERNED PARTY:

¶10

1 DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 001.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 031.

¶12

3 PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 001. BY SRI.MANU S. DSG OF INDIA

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.5682/2022 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the accused No.20 in CBCID Crime No.429/CR/S-1/2004, which was initially registered at Chadayamangalam Police Station as Crime No.315 of 2003. The offences alleged against the petitioners and others are under Sections 465, 468, 471, 417 and 34 of IPC.

¶18

The prosecution case is that the accused, Nos.1 to 3, are conducting a travel agency, and the 4^th respondent was the Postman in the Post Office. It is alleged that the accused persons, by giving false addresses, obtained fake passports during the year 2000-2002. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the Annexure-A2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal. As per the said order, C.M.P.No.437 of 2022, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The aforesaid petition was submitted by him seeking permission to obtain a passport. Petitioner was compelled to submit such an application because of the restriction imposed under Section 6(2) (f) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967, in obtaining passports for persons involved in criminal proceedings. This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging the Annexure A2 order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.5682/2022 3

¶20

Heard Sri.S.R.Sreejith, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Manu, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the 3^rd respondent and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶21

The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Annexure-A2 order is not legally sustainable, mainly because of the reason that the crime is of the year 2003, and even now, the Crime Branch has not filed any final report against the petitioner.

¶22

On perusal of the records, it is seen that, no specific reason for denying the said relief is stated in the impugned order. On the other hand, the prayer is rejected by taking note of the objections raised by the Public prosecutor to the effect that, if released, the petitioner is likely to abscond, which may affect the fair trial of the case. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this case is that the crime was registered in 2003, and even now, no final report has been submitted. Merely because a person is arraigned as accused in FIR, his opportunities to pursue his employment and to utilize the opportunities to go abroad for the said purpose cannot be denied. This is particularly so when there is a failure on the part of the investigation agency to submit the final report within a reasonable time. In this case, the investigation

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.5682/2022 4

¶24

could not be completed even after the expiry of 19 years. Since no final report has been filed implicating the petitioner as an accused so far, he cannot be treated as a person against whom any criminal proceedings are pending. Therefore, under no circumstances can he be treated as a person who should be denied permission to go abroad on account of the restriction contemplated under Section 6(2)(f) of the Indian Passport Act.

¶25

In such circumstances, I do not find any legal justification for denying the relief sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure-A2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal in C.C.No.437 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to get a passport for a period of one year, subject to the condition that he executes a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal. He shall undertake before the learned Magistrate that he shall appear before the court as and when required.

¶26

Sd/ -

¶27

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶28

DG/18.10.22

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.5682/2022 5

¶30

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5682/2022

¶31

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶32

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2022 IN C.M.P. NO.333/2022 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL Annexure A2 FREE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.437/2022 DATED 27.5.2022 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KADAKKAL Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2021 IN C.C. NO.2739/2021 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Noushad.a. v. Detective Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noushad.a. v. Detective Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratheesh @ Charls Vs State of Kerala

Rohith J. Vestor Vs Dr. Stephin Muthayyan

Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan @ Murukeshan Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Thampi Vs State of Kerala