Allowed

Muhammed Anvar M.C. v. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government

Kerala HC4 Apr 2023WP(C)/10778/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to renew passport, arguing disqualification under passport law required status as accused, not suspect. Court held, in light of CBI closure reports and lack of accused status, passport should be issued without insisting on court exoneration orders.

What did the court decide?

Passport to be issued to petitioner after normal inquiry without insisting on production of documents relating to the crime.

Muhammed Anvar M.C. Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.C.No.10778/23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10778 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED ANVAR M.C., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MAMINHI CHEMBRIKA, SHAFI MANZIL, CHEMNAD P.O., KALANADU, MELPARAMBU, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 671 317.

¶8

BY ADVS. RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM) SABAD K.H. SANTHOSH BHASKARAN NAIR BERTRAND BASIL RIFSA REBAIE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SO(DB), 74 B SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001.

¶11

2 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER KOZHIKKODE, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE KOZHIKKOD, ERANTHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKKODE, PIN – 673 006.

¶12

3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CBI OCR COMPLEX P.O., VALLAKKADAVU ROAD, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 110 001.

¶13

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

W.P.C.No.10778/23

¶15

¶16

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CBI OCR COMPLEX P.O., VALLAKKADAVU ROAD, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 008.

¶17

BY ADV.S MANU

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.C.No.10778/23

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

¶23

following reliefs:

¶24

“(i) To issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent to renew his passport in the light of the decision reported in 2021(5) KHC 625 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

¶25

(ii) To declare that the delay in accepting the closure report filed by the CBI in connection with Crime No.RC11(S)/2010/CBI/SCB/TVPM before the Hon’ble CJM Court, Ernakulam is not a bar to renew the passport of the petitioner.

¶26

(iii) To declare that petitioner is fully eligible for renewing his passport as he is not included any criminal cases registered against him by Kerala Police or CBI or any other investigating agency in India:

¶27

(iv) To grant such other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶28

Facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as

follows:

W.P.C.No.10778/23

The petitioner is the holder of the passport bearing No.Z1223219 issued on 17.07.2003, which was valid till 16.07.2013. Crime No.102 of 2010 was registered by the Backel Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in connection with unnatural death of one Chembrika Khasi C.M.Abdulla Moulavi. Later, the investigation of the said case was taken over by the CBI. It was re-numbered as RC 11(S)/2010 of CBI/SCB, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶33

During the initial stage of the investigation, petitioner was one among the suspects as the petitioner was a neighbour of the deceased and had contact with him. As his role was being investigated, the CBI seized the petitioner's passport and deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, as a precautionary measure to prevent the petitioner from moving away from the country. While the passport was in the custody of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, the validity of the same expired.

¶34

In the meantime, the CBI conducted the investigation

¶35

into the matter and submitted closure reports on four occasions, which would indicate that though the petitioner was a suspect,

¶36

W.P.C.No.10778/23 5

¶37

he was never implicated as an accused in the said case. The petitioner subsequently submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, for release of the passport and the same was released to him. Subsequently, he filed Ext.P5 application before the 2^nd respondent on 23.12.2022 for renewal of thie passport. In response, Ext.P6 communication was issued by the 2^nd respondent, directing him to produce supporting documents. According to the petitioner, supporting documents referred to in Ext.P6 includes the order passed by the court concerned, exonerating the petitioner from the criminal case. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.

¶38

Heard Sri.Raju Vadakkekara, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.

¶39

The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that insisting on an order passed by the court is not at all necessary in this case as the petitioner was never implicated as an accused. Therefore, it is pointed out that

¶40

W.P.C.No.10778/23

¶41

¶42

a direction has to be issued to the 2^nd respondent to renew the passport without insisting for such documents.

¶43

I have perused the documents and heard the contentions of both sides. Section 6(1)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 contemplates disqualification for a person to obtain a passport against whom proceedings are pending before any criminal court in India. The aforesaid provision reads as follows:

¶44

“(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court in India.”

¶45

On a reading of the said provision, it can be seen that

¶46

the prohibition would come in play only if there are any pending proceedings in respect of any offences before any criminal court in India. In this case, the petitioner was never implicated as an accused in the crime, instead, he was only a suspect, whose name was never mentioned even in the FIR. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a person against whom a criminal proceeding is pending. To attract the said disqualification, the person concerned must have been implicated as an accused in the charge sheet filed by the police, which is not the scenario in

¶47

W.P.C.No.10778/23

¶48

¶49

this case. Therefore, under any circumstances no authority can declare the petitioner as a person having the disqualification as contemplated under Section 6(1)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

¶50

It is also to be noted that, even though Section 6(1) (g) also contemplates a disqualification for a person to obtain a passport, in the event of a warrant or summons for the appearance or a warrant for the arrest of the applicant has been issued by the Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India. In this case, such a situation is also not there.

¶51

Therefore, it is only proper that the 2^nd respondent considers the application submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of a passport without treating the petitioner’s status as a suspect in the aforesaid crime as a disqualification under Section 6(1)(f) and 6(1) (g) of the Passport Act, 1967. This is particularly because the CBI has already filed closure reports in the aforesaid crimes.

¶52

In such circumstances, the petitioner can be treated as a person with no disqualification as contemplated under the

¶53

W.P.C.No.10778/23 8

¶54

provisions referred to above. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take up and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application and issue a passport to the petitioner, after conducting a normal inquiry and without insisting on the production of any other documents relating to the crime referred above.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/5.4.23

W.P.C.No.10778/23

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10778/2023

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. Z-1223219, ISSUED ON 17.07.2003 BY THE COUNSEL GENERAL OF INDIA, DUBAI AND VALID TILL 16.07.2013. Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRODUCTION CUM SEIZURE MEMO PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI SPECIAL BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 01.12.2010 Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP© NO. 16354/2019 DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.12.2022 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CJM COURT ERNKULAM Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.12.2022, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR RENEWAL OF HIS PASSPORT Exhibit- P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE COMMUNICATION AS PER FILE NO. KO4074898173122,DATED 26.02.2023.

Muhammed Anvar M.C. v. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anvar M.C. v. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government

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

Santhamma John Vs State of Kerala

Association of Registered Social Clubs of Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Gangadharan.T., Vs Abdul Rasheed

M/S.Hotel Sky Palace - Metro Tower, Vs State of Kerala

Nishan.a. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sasikumar S Vs State of Kerala