Shrishti Karnwal, Alias Shrishti Onkar vs Union Of India & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 is an Indian Passport Holder, who was serving in Dubai; but, these days, he has come back to India.

Petitioner has made a complaint against respondent no. 4 to the Regional Passport Authority, wherein she has highlighted that some criminal case is

pending against respondent no. 4. Petitioner has also prayed that Passport of respondent no. 4 be impounded for certain reasons indicated in her

representation.

Grievance of the petitioner is that Regional Passport Officer has not taken any decision on her complaint. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has

approached this Court.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General was asked to get instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, he submits that

respondent no. 4 is holding a Passport, which was issued by Consulate General of India, Dubai. He further submits that Passport of respondent no. 4

cannot be impounded merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Criminal Court has framed charges against respondent no. 4 on 19.04.2021 for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is sufficient for the purpose of impounding his Passport

under Section 10 (3) (e) of Passport Act.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if Regional Passport Authority is

directed to pass appropriate order on petitioner’s complaint.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Regional Passport Authority to consider petitioner’s complaint and take

appropriate decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order

alongwith copy of complaint filed by the petitioner.