Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23446/2017allowed

Venugopal, S/O.Balakrishnan v. The Regional Passport Officer

2018-04-17Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.23446 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19707 & 19708 of 2017 Venugopal ... Petitioner vs.

The Regional Passport Officer Bharathi Ula Street Race Course Road Madurai-625 002 ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records from the respondent relating to the impugned order, dated 23.11.2016, passed in Reference No.SCN/304764723/16 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return back the passport bearing Passport No.P1643120 of the petitioner immediately.

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents :

Mr.Kathirvelu Addl. Solicitor General assisted by Mr.G.Rajaraman Central Government Standing Counsel

O R D E R

By the impugned order, dated 23.11.2016, the respondent has directed the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken to impound the Passport No.P1643120, dated 25.07.2016, under Sections 10(3)(e) and 12(1)(b) of Indian Passports Act, 1967, in view of pendency of an F.I.R. in Crime No.53 of 2014, dated 02.04.2014, on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruppulani Police Station.

2. The law on the proposition as to whether the pendency of an F.I.R. can be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings has been settled down in various Judgments and in one of such Judgment reported in 2014 (2) CWC 684 [W.Jaihar William v. State of Tamil Nadu], the learned Judge of this Court had reiterated the proposition holding that mere pendency of an F.I.R. cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

construed as pendency of criminal proceedings.

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings, a show-cause notice, dated 23.11.2016, has been issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why his passport should not be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967.

4. As observed earlier, mere pendency of an F.I.R. cannot be deemed as pendency of criminal proceedings and as such, the respondents may not be justified in initiating steps to impound the petitioner's Passport.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 23.11.2016, passed by the respondent, in Reference No.SCN/304764723/16, is set aside. The respondent is directed to return back the petitioner's passport bearing No.P1643120 forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Street, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002.

+ 1 CC TO Mr.G.RAJARAMAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 61673 + 1 CC TO Mr.T.R.JEYAPALAM, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 62058 KRK TE/SV-MMS/SAR-3 : 25/04/2018 : 2P/4C W.P.(MD) No.23446 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19707 & 19708 of 2017 17.04.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/