AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 354 words\
This Crl.M.C has been filed challenging Annexure B order dated 27.08.2019 in C.M.P.No.2070/2019 in C.C.2301/2015 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.2301/2015. The offences alleged against the petitioner in
Annexure A final report are under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner had filed C.M.P.No.2070/2019 seeking release of her passport and for permission to go abroad in connection with her daughter's
treatment. On a consideration of the matter, the learned Magistrate referred to the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act and the
notification issued by the Central Government as notification No.GSR570(E) dated 25.08.1993, issued under Section 22 of the Passport Act, and found
that the petition can be allowed by permitting the petitioner to depart India for a period of six months, not withstanding the pendency of
C.C.No.2301/2015. This was allowed on a further condition that the petitioner shall be represented by a Counsel on each day when the case is posted.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, considering the circumstances for which the petitioner is seeking permission to travel
abroad, which is the treatment of her daughter at Singapore, the period of six months may be extended to atleast one year. He would submit that the
offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are not serious enough to deny this request. He would also submit that the defacto
complainant is her mother-in-law and the case came to be registered only on account of some disputes regarding the family property.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the request made on behalf of the petitioner by her Counsel is
quite justified, in the light of the circumstances noticed above. Therefore, in modification of Annexure B order, it is directed that the petitioner can be
permitted to depart India for a period of one year instead of six months permitted by the learned Magistrate.
This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.