Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjeet Singh Rana vs Union Of India And Others on 7 February, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013
Date of Decision:Feb. 7,2014
Gurjeet Singh Rana ....................................... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Malik, Advocate for
Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Asstt. Solicitor General
of India along with
Mrs. Kamla Malik, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. J.S.Toor, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh.
Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab.
...
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue a passport to the petitioner.
Kaur Rupinder2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 2 ] Petitioner is a MLA from the Congress Party and also the Co-founder of the Rana Group of Companies and is a frequent traveler abroad. He is holder of Passport No. E- 4163824 which was valid upto 4.3.2013. After its expiry, he applied for renewal of the same vide application dated 4.5.2013 (Annexure P1). Vide order dated 7.5.2013 (Annexure P2) the petitioner was informed that two FIRs have been registered against him and he was directed to furnish a court order permitting him to depart from India or a copy of judgment if any.
Counsel for the petitioner states that two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 57 dated 14.3.2013 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 352 and 384 IPC (Annexure P3) and FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.2012 under Sections 188/109/440/148/149/427 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Annexure P4) have been registered against the petitioner and both these FIRs are under investigation and no challan has been presented in any Court till date.
Vide order dated 27.5.2013 (Annexure P5) the petitioner was granted permission to go abroad by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala. Thereafter, he received a letter dated 7.10.2013 (Annexure P7) from the Ministry of External Affairs requiring him to submit the final judgment from the criminal court. Thereafter, the petitioner replied vide his letter dated 12.10.2013 (Annexure P8). Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 3 ] On notice, written statement has been filed by the Regional Passport Officer-Rakesh Aggarwal stating that the petitioner had applied for re-issue of passport vide file No. CHD-0077176449413. He declared in his passport that two FIRs were registered/pending against him. As per the verification conducted by SSP, Chandigarh, FIR No. 57 dated 14.3.2013 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353 and 384 IPC has been registered at Police Station 3, Chandigarh and thus he did not recommend for re-issuance of passport of the petitioner (Annexure R2/1). As per the petitioner's own declaration, second FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.2012 under Sections 188, 109, 440, 148, 149, 427 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Kapurthala, therefore, he is not entitled for re-issuance of the passport. It is admitted that he was granted permission to go abroad by the trial Court, Kapurthala, in FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.2012. No permission has been sought to go abroad in FIR No. 57 dated 14.3.2013 registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. As per verification report, he is not entitled to re-issuance of the passport.
The question for consideration before this Court is- Whether the renewal of the passport can be denied under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967?
One of the condition for denial of passport under Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 4 ] Section 6(2)(f) is as under:-
"6.(2)(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India."
The Supreme Court had an occasion to examine under what circumstances or stage cognizance of an offence is taken by a Court and what constitutes taking cognizance. In Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 183 in paragraph 8 is has been held as under:-
"8. "Taking cognizance of an offence" by the court has to be distinguished from the filing of the complaint by the complainant. Taking cognizance would mean the action taken by the court for initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence regarding which the complaint is filed. Before it can be said that any Magistrate or court has taken cognizance of an offence it must be shown that he has applied his mind to the facts for the purpose of proceeding further in the matter at the instance of the complainant. If the Magistrate or the court is shown to have applied his mind not for the purpose of taking action upon the complaint but for taking some other kind of action contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure such as Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 5 ] ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issuing a search warrant, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence (Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. State of W.B. And Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam)."
The Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Narottam Dash Parekh v. Superintendent (Administration) Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs & Ors. (W.P. No.1163 of 2007) was examining a case where the Passport Authorities had renewed the passport when the applicant was facing investigation. Subsequently, after the renewal of the passport in the year 2005 a charge-sheet was presented against him in the trial Court in the FIR. Thereafter, a notice was given to him for cancellation of the passport by the Superintendent, Regional Passport Office on the ground that he had obtained the passport by suppressing the fact that a criminal case was pending against him. The Calcutta High Court after referring to the Supreme Court judgment came to a conclusion that merely facing investigation could not be a case of cognizance of an offence by a court. The petitioner when had applied for renewal of his passport in the year 2005 there was no challan or charge-sheet against him. After getting the renewal, he had visited U.K and after returned he deposited the passport with the Investigating Officer as per directions of the Court. It was after charge-sheet has been presented against him as an accused an inference could be drawn that the Court had taken cognizance of the offence. Therefore, at Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 6 ] the time of renewal of the passport in the year 2005 he was not required to state that a criminal proceeding was pending against him in a criminal court in India. A direction was given to immediately release the passport. However, liberty was granted to the respondent to proceed afresh under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act 1967 and in case of not initiating any proceeding, a direction was given to return the passport to the petitioner subject to directions given by the criminal court.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhwinder Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 3433 of 2011 decided on 11.8.2011) was examining the case of a petitioner for non-issuance of a passport on the ground of his alleged involvement in a criminal case. The FIR had been registered on 25.11.2002 in which the petitioner was not named. A cancellation report was presented which was not accepted by the Magistrate and he ordered fresh investigation in the year 2006. A direction was given to the State to report the exact position and if no criminal offence against the petitioner was made out it was directed to make appropriate recommendation to the Passport Officer so that necessary orders in accordance with law could be passed keeping in view Article 19 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of movement.
In the facts of the present case, as per the reply Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 23972 of 2013 [ 7 ] filed by the respondent, FIR No. 57 dated 14.3.2013 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353 and 384 IPC has been registered at Police Station Section 3, Chandigarh and a second FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.2012 under Sections 188, 109, 440, 148, 149, 427 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been registered at Police Station City Kapurthala.
This petition is disposed of by giving a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders after getting the report regarding exact position from the State with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid two FIRs and if there is no criminal offence in which the petitioner is currently involved, it shall make appropriate recommendation for the same to the Passport Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such report from the State, the Passport Officer shall take a decision in a further period of 15 days and pass appropriate orders regarding issuance of passport.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 7.2.2014 rupi Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.21 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh