Madras High Court
Bilal Bin Abdullah vs State Rep. By on 15 February, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.SR2702 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.2477 of 2019
Bilal Bin Abdullah ... Petitioner
vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
State Passport Team,
Chennai.
(Cr.No.1938/2015) .... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.2477 of 2019: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking to condone
the delay of 16 days in filing the criminal revision.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.SR2702 of 2019: Criminal revision case has
been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 (5) of Cr.P.C. to call for the
records pertaining to the order dated 18.09.2018 passed in
C.M.P.No.4408/2018 by the learned CCB & CB CID Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 and set aside the same.
Petitioner : Mr.P.Prince Prem Kumar
Respondent: Mr.R.Surya Prakash,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the above criminal revision. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for return of petitioner's passport bearing No.L2769621. The learned Magistrate, after adverting to the materials placed on record and after hearing both the parties, by order dated 18.09.2018, refused to return the passport, since the same is fabricated one and it has already been handed over to Passport Authority of India.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had approached the Passport Authority for return of passport and they have directed the petitioner to approach the Court concerned, where the case is pending. The petitioner is facing difficulty to travel abroad for the purpose of getting employment. The learned Magistrate, without considering the above aspects, had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
4 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet has also not filed and hence the passport in question cannot be returned at this stage.
5 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5 It is seen that in the present case, investigation is pending and charge sheet not yet filed. Under these circumstances, if the passport is returned, entire case of the prosecution would be defeated, since the case was registered with the allegation of fabrication of passport. Hence this Court is not inclined to entertain the present criminal revision case. However, it is always open to the petitioner to avail his remedy before appropriate forum, after filing of charge sheet by the respondent police, if he deserves. The respondent police is directed to expedite the investigation and file a charge sheet within a reasonable period of time.
6 Hence condoning the delay of 16 days by allowing this miscellaneous petition and numbering the main revision case would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision case is rejected at the SR stage itself.
15.02.2019 Index: Yes/No cgi To
1. The CCB & CB CID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
2. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
cgi Crl.R.C.No.SR2702 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.2477 of 2019 15.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in