← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21648/2015disposed of

Ramanpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-12Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: August 12, 2015 Ramanpreet Kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Kiranjit Singh Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.A.S.Klar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No.146 dated 31.01.2010 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, for grant of permission to leave India for Canada, for the purpose of getting the VISA for India extended for another five years from 17.08.2015 to 16.08.2020 through the Consulate General of India, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

-2learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that no application has been filed before learned Illaqa Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate asking for permission to go to Canada and the present petition has been directly filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandraswami and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1998 AIR (SC) 2679. I have gone through the above-cited order. It is nowhere held in that case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for leaving the country, an application is to be directly filed before the High Court if the anticipatory bail is granted by the High Court. Rather, from the perusal of the cited order, I find that a criminal misc.

application was filed to modify the condition for bail imposed in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.11.1996, so as to permit the appellant to go to abroad and the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the condition by stating that petitioner will not leave country unless permitted by the Court on such conduction as the Court may impose in that event. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the bail order in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put the condition that the appellant will not leave the country, which means that earlier condition was that in any circumstance, the appellant of that case will not leave the country and later on the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified that order and the condition was modified as stated above that he can leave the country with permission of the Court.

In the present case, in the anticipatory bail, this Court has

-3only bound the petitioner to abide by the conditions provided under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. permit to leave the country but with prior permission of the Court. Therefore, the order cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, will not apply in the present case.

Otherwise also, this Court is already burdened with the judicial work and if such type of petitions are entertained by this Court directly, then this Court would be further burdened with large number of applications for permission to go to abroad. Secondly, the trial Court or the Illaqa Magistrate, is in better position to see the conduct of the party to determine whether he may be allowed to go to abroad or not. Further, if such type of petition is entertained before this Court, notice is to be given to the complainant and the complainant has to come from a long distance and also to spend lot of money for contesting the petition before this Court, whereas the complainant can easily contest the application before the Illaqa Magistrate or CJM.

Otherwise also, it is settled position that litigant should first approach to the lower Court and if he is aggrieved from the order passed by the lower Court, then he can avail the remedy by filing appeal, revision or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, whatever available as per law. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to first apply before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate.