AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the Passport Officer - 1st respondent herein to consider the representation submitted by him for initiating proceedings u/s 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 for impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent.
Facts, stated in brief, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case are that the petitioner claims to have filed a private complaint against the 2nd respondent and his daughter in P.C.R. No. 31/2008 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 (II) read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 07.04.2008. Learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred the ease to the Indiranagar Police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Indiranagar Police, after registering a ease, investigated the matter and submitted a ''B'' report.
Petitioner submitted a protest memo and objected for accepting the ''B'' report. It is urged by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, after recording evidence and perusing the documentary evidence placed before him, has issued process against the accused - respondent No. 2 herein. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner apprehended that the 2nd respondent might leave the Country by virtue of the Passport, he has made a representation on 04.10.2011 before the 1st respondent - Passport Officer requesting him to impound the passport issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. Copy of the representation dated 04.10.2011 is produced at Annexure-A. Contending that the said representation is not considered by the 1st respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the said representation.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Balakrishna Shastry who has placed reliance on the provisions contained u/s 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 to contend that the Passport Officer is enjoined with a duty to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders regarding impounding the passport issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. He further submits that if the respondent leaves the Country, the petitioner will not be in a position to secure his presence in the criminal proceedings initialed or for that matter in the civil suit filed in O.S. No. 7245/2010.
On careful perusal of the pleadings and on consideration of the contentions urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has instituted a civil suit against the 2nd respondent and his daughter in O.S. No. 7245/2010 seeking several reliefs and the Criminal proceedings initiated in the private complaint is a sequel to the grievance made by the petitioner in the civil proceedings. If the petitioner intends to secure his interest and the rights he has options in law to take recourse in the said civil proceedings and also in the proceedings pending before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner does not have any vested right to have the passport possessed by the 2nd respondent impounded by approaching tins Court only because he has initiated private complaint against him. Petitioner cannot enforce such a right by approaching this Court merely because he has made a representation before the Passport Officer, It is for the Passport Officer to consider the same in accordance with law. Such a direction cannot be granted. No such case is made out in this writ petition to issue such a direction.
Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail other remedies in the pending proceedings before the Civil Court and also before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, this writ petition is disposed of declining to interfere in the matter.