Delhi District Court
This Revision Petition Has Been Filed By ... vs Prem Prakash on 16 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JDUGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 409/2012
Prem Prakash
S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o AM187 Second Floor,
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi
Presently residing at
Houe No. 1052, Sector 13,
Karnal Haryana
Versus
State
Date of Institution: 7.8.2012
Arguments heard on: 16.8.2012
Date of decision: 16.8.2012
ORDER (Oral):
This revision petition has been filed by the applicant/ revisionist Prem Prakash against the impugned order of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 04.08.2012 declining the application of the applicant/ revisionist seeking permission to go abroad. While granting the anticipatory bail to the applicant/ revisionist the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 20.7.2012 had granted leave to the applicant to approach the Trial Court for permission to leave India. According to the applicant/ revisionist he has now joined the investigations and is also reporting to the St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 1 of 6 Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so. It is pleaded that the applicant/ revisionist is a businessman whose business is settled in India under the name and style of Turning Point Studies Consultants Pvt. Ltd. which is registered under Indian Companies Act and is also licensed by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (whose license is stated to be under renewal). It is further pleaded that the business involves the need of applicant/ revisionist to frequently travel abroad and he has been receiving invitations from various Universities and Educational Institutional abroad for university campus visits, discussion of marketing plans etc. and therefore the curtailment of movement of the applicant out of India shall cause severe damage to his business and also affect the prospectus of his children. It is also pleaded that the applicant/ revisionist has landed properties and bank accounts in India and his entire family stays in India and there are no chances of his fleeing from the trial of the case.
The order of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 4.8.2012 has been assailed on various grounds as elaborated in the petition and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and now the revisionist seeks setting aside of the said order and permission to go abroad for the period as deemed just and proper.
Reply to the revision petition has been filed by the complainant/ estranged wife of the revisionist wherein she has expressed her apprehension that keeping in view the previous conduct of the applicant/ revisionist who had not been cooperating in the investigations, he St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 2 of 6 may flee from the territory of the Country and may not join the further investigations. She has pointed out that the applicant/ revisionist had agreed to pay Rs.40,000/ per month as interim maintenance and it was on this account that the anticipatory bail was granted to him by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.7.2012 but soon after obtaining the bail, the applicant/ revisionist had started threatening her to withdraw all the cases filed by her and has also stated that he would not pay a single penny to her. She has further submitted that the applicant/ revisionist has stopped the monthly interim maintenance which is a concealment of fact and had filed a detailed written statement in the Court at Karnal wherein he specifically mentioned that his monthly income is only Rs.29,000/ and due to the tremendous pressure for bail, he had accepted the interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/ but now it is not possible for him to pay the aforesaid amount.
A report was also called from the local police. The Assistant Commissioner of Police has reported that the inquiries from the Protector of Emigrants Delhi and Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India had been conducted and it has been reported that the validity of the RC issued to M/s. Turning Point Studies Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has already expired, whose renewal was to be made within three months of the expiry which period has also now expired and therefore this license is required to be treated as null & void. It is further reported that the copies of the invitation letters from private educational institutions of foreign countries like France, Spain, Germany and Greece etc. inviting him to promote St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 3 of 6 education in these countries, have not been addressed or routed through Ministry of Education (HRD), Government of India or any sponsored Institution of Education Consultancy like Edcil etc. It is also pointed out that there is no mention in the RC that the application/ revisionist Prem Prakash has been granted license to promote Education in foreign countries and this RC had been granted to carry on the business of recruitment for deployment of Indian workers with foreign employers and the inquiries from the Ministry revealed that the license/ RC is not valid to promote Education abroad and is not meant to send innocent young boys to European Countries to seek admission for study in Private Education Institution/ Universities which have not been recognized as regular Universities by the All India University Association.
I have considered the rival contentions and the report placed before me. At the very outset, I may mention that the conduct of the applicant/ revisionist in not paying the interim maintenance amount to his estranged wife as agreed upon in the Mediation Cell and also at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, smacks of malafidies. On the one hand in his written statement before the Court at Karnal (copy placed on record) the applicant/ accused has stated that his monthly income is only Rs.29,000/ whereas on the other hand the revisionist is talking about his overseas business abroad and frequent visits to abroad. He cannot be permitted to promote his so called business at the cost of depriving his wife and children of their agreed maintenance.
St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 4 of 6 Secondly during the course of arguments the Educational Qualification of the applicant/ revisionist has been duly highlighted and it is revealed that he is only 10th class pass. In this background his claims of being an Educational Consultant for promoting education in the various countries, appears doubtful and the possibility of the applicant/ revisionist being involved in some profession/ transactions not duly recognized in India, cannot be ruled out.
Thirdly I may observe that the license/ RC was issued to carry out the business of recruitment for deployment of Indian worker with foreign employers and not for promoting education in foreign countries. The possibility of the applicant/ revisionist indulging into sending innocent students to European countries for admission in private Institutions/ Universities not so recognized as regular University by the All India University Association, cannot be ruled out more so, because the invitations on which the applicant/ revisionist has placed his reliance, have not been routed through the Ministry of Education (HRD) or any sponsored Institution of Education Consultancy like Edcil etc. Fourthly even otherwise, the license/ RC issued by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India to his company M/s. Turning Point Studies Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to carry out the business of recruitment for deployment of Indian worker with foreign employers, has already expired and so much so that even the renewal period has expired and the license/ RC is required to be treated as null and void and hence, the St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 5 of 6 grounds raised by him in his petition is devoid of merit.
Lastly the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the reason why the revisionist is desperate to go abroad is because of his extra marital relations with a European lady with whom he wants to settle abroad and for which reason he has started selling his property and assets in India, may not be all that unfounded keeping in view the conduct of the revisionist in stopping the interim maintenance to his estranged wife/ complainant who is also having the custody of one of the child. Even otherwise, the investigations are still at the initial stage and the record reveals that even previously the applicant/ revisionist had not been cooperating in the investigations on account of which Look Out Circular had to be issued.
Permission for going abroad can certainly be given for reasons which are legal, genuine and bonafide. Once the Court is not convinced by the genuineness, legality and bonafide's of the request so made or the grounds so raised, then there is no illegality in the refusal of the Trial Court to accord such permission. In view of the detail discussion as aforesaid, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 04.08.2012. The revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
Revision file be consigned Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 16.8.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Prem Prakash, CR No. 409/12 Page No. 6 of 6