Jaydeep Ravindra Patil @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India

This Court on 3rd October, 2018, had directed counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition in the office of Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,

Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Passport Department and matter was posted for 4th October, 2018.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by impugned order dt. 18th September, 2018, the respondents have decided to impound the passport of the

petitioner issued on 17th July, 2018, invoking the power under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and it is only on account of the order passed on 10th

August, 2018, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, in a complaint filed by estranged wife of the petitioner, the proceedings under Section 125 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated in which she has claimed maintenance for herself and her son Ranveer. Counsel submitted that

the Apex Court and various other High Courts have time and again laid down the law that proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. are of civil nature

and such proceedings cannot be termed as criminal proceedings.

Counsel has further submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and the respondents on erroneous interpretation of Section

10 (3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, have issued the order of impounding passport. Counsel submitted that the order which is passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Vashi dt. 10th August, 2018, is already a subject matter of revision petition filed before the Competent Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents-Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, submitted that the authorities have rightly passed the order dt. 18th September, 2018,

impounding the passport of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that there was a direction by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi in his order dt. 10th

August, 2018, to seize the passport issued to the petitioner and authorities were bound to comply with the directions given by the Competent Court

while deciding the proceedings filed by wife of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 against the

order passed under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 674,

wherein it has been held that the Passport cannot be impounded under Section 104 Cr.P.C. as the Passports Act, 1967, is a special Act and the action

can be taken under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 to impound the passport.

Counsel also places reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta in W.P. No. 14582/2007 (Kabir Hossain Mondal Vs. Union of India

& Ors.) decided on 1st September,

2011, wherein the Calcutta High Court has interpreted Section 10 (3) (e) and has held that only on account of registration of Criminal case, the power

under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967, cannot be invoked.

Counsel further placed reliance on a judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59959/2016 (Mohd. Farid Vs.

Union of India & Ors.) reported in 2017 (1) ADJ 166, wherein the impounding of passport has been declared to be bad only on the ground of

pendency of a criminal case.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner should not be permitted to go abroad, as there are serious charges

leveled against him.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Prima-facie this Court finds that interpretation of Section 10 (3) (e) requires that there has to be a proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have

been committed by the holder of the passport.

This Court is of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as an offence, such proceedings have been held to be

civil proceedings as per pronouncement of the various High Courts in different cases. This Court further finds that the order passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Vashi, is in respect of the complaint made by wife of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said order itself is

under challenge.

This Court finds that prima-facie respondents have not passed the order in proper & legal manner.

The petitioner has pleaded that he has to go on office assignment to KualaLampur, Malaysia from 8th October, 2018 to 12th October, 2018 and

Stockholm, Sweden from 20th October, 2018 to 20th December, 2018. Considering the urgency in the matter, this Court, deems it proper, to stay

the operation of order dt. 18th September, 2018 and the authorities are restrained to create any hindrance in proposed journey of the petitioner on

Passport No. S4399268 dt. 17th July, 2018.

It is, however, made clear that after petitioner returns back from his journey from Stockholm, Sweden on 20th December, 2018, he will immediately

report back to the passports authorities.

The present writ petition may be listed in the First week of January, 2019.

In the meanwhile, counsel for the respondents may file reply to the writ petition.