Judicial Order Refusing Permission To Travel Abroad Is "Interlocutory" In Nature & Not Revisable, Can Be Challenged U/S 482 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a judicial order refusing permission to travel abroad would qualify as an "interlocutory order" and thus, revision against the same is barred under Section 397(2) of CrPC.

The provision states that powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings.

In this light, the bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal further held that such orders can be challenged by invoking High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. It observed,

"The impugned order whereby application for permission to travel abroad has been declined, would qualify as an interlocutory order...As revision against such an order is barred, an aggrieved person has no other remedy, but to invoke the inherent powers of this Court."

The bench noted that the question as to whether a particular order is an 'interlocutory order' has to be considered in the light of the Supreme Court's judgments in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus M/s Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others (2001) 7 SCC 401 and K.K. Patel and another Versus State of Gujarat and another (2000)6 SCC 195 wherein Apex Court held that an 'interlocutory order' is purely interim or temporary, not touching important rights or liabilities of the parties and one which does not finally culminate the criminal proceedings.

When tested on this anvil, the court noted that the impugned order whereby the application for permission to travel abroad was declined, would qualify as an interlocutory order falling within the ambit of Section 397(2) of the Code and since revision against such an order is barred there is no other remedy, but to invoke the inherent powers of this Court.

The development comes in a petition challenging the Magistrate's order precluding the Petitioner to travel to Australia for employment purposes, pending a complaint filed against him by his wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had a valid job offer in hand and there is no doubt about his bonafide.

It relied on Supreme Court's judgments in Satwant Singh Sawhney Versus D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Smt. Maneka Gandhi Versus Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 wherein it was held that 'personal liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to go abroad which cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.