Strictures On Issuance Of Passport During Pendency Of Criminal Case Do Not Apply When Accused Wants To Return To India: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said. Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when...
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said.
Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when the concerned person wants to leave India and not when the person wants to come back to India.
In the present case, the Petitioner, carrying on a business in Malaysia, lost his passport and he filed a complaint before the local police in Malaysia. He then approached the Indian Embassy in Malaysia for the re-issuance of his Passport. However, the Indian Embassy declined to do so citing involvement of petitioner in criminal cases.
The petitioner was involved in a few criminal cases while he was in India in the years 2017 and 2018. While one case is pending in the FIR stage, the other two are in CC Stage.
Observing that earlier under similar circumstances the court had taken a favorable view, Justice Swaminathan allowed the issuance of a passport to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to make an application to the Indian Embassy in Malaysia enclosing a copy of the order. The embassy was directed to renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner for a period of two years.
The Court also directed the petitioner to come over to India and participate in the criminal proceedings. The petitioner was also directed to inform the concerned Court about the orders passed in the present case. It was further observed that if the criminal case does not come to an end within the period for which the Passport was renewed, the petitioner could approach the concerned Court where the criminal case was going on and get necessary permissions in this regard.
Case Title: Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others
Case No: WP No 12515 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan For Mr.Mohamed Ashick
Counsel for Respondent: Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi Central Government Standing Counsel (for R1,R2,R3 and R5), Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate (for R-6)