Rt. Rev Manoj Charan vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 25 February, 2020

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rt. Rev Manoj Charan vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 25 February, 2020

By this petition the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 6.5.2019 and 12.4.2019 received from the respondents and has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to issue the passport.

The petitioner who is Bishop of Diocese of Bhopal, Church of North India, has approached this Court with the plea that he had received invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference from the Archbishop of Canterbury to be organized in Lambeth, England from 23rd July, 2020 to 2nd August, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application for issuance of passport on 14.3.2019. The petitioner had received the communication dated 12.4.2019 that as per the police verification report received from Rajasthan, Crime No.03 dated 3.1.2019 under Section 417, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC registered against the petitioner, therefore, an explanation was sought from him. The petitioner had submitted the reply on 6.5.2019 stating that he had no knowledge about registration of any such FIR and that the petitioner's name has been included in the FIR merely because he was a Pastor in the 1st Church, Ratlam from November, 2009 to May, 2013, but there is no allegation in respect of the property of 1st Church, Ratlam and the allegation is in respect of the property at Biaor, Ajmer which is under the control of Rajasthan Diocese having nothing to do with the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 16.5.2019 the respondent had issued another communication to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause for the proposed action under the Passport Act and for denying the passport facility Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 27/02/2020 16:56:36 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP No.24973/19 on the ground of suppression of information. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that adverse police verification report (Annexure R/1) was received in respect of the petitioner disclosing that Crime No.3/19 was registered against the petitioner on 3.1.2019. Further stand is taken that in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act and the notification dated 25.8.1993, petitioner is not entitled for issuance of passport on the ground of registration of the criminal case.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mere registration of FIR is not enough for denying the passport and till the cognizance is taken by the competent court, the criminal case cannot be said to be pending.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the FIR has been registered. On instructions he submits that the Challan has been filed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for passport.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 contains the ground for refusal of passport and sub- section (2)(f) thereof which has been attracted in the present case, reads as under:-

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents etc.-(1) ************ (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-

(a) ************

(b) ************

(c) ************

(d) ************ Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 27/02/2020 16:56:36 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP No.24973/19

(e) ************

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;"

So far as the notification dated 25.8.1993 is concerned, it is attracted when the proceedings in respect of offence alleged are pending before the criminal court. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Alok Chansoria Vs. Union of India vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed in WP No.9063/15 after considering Section 6(2)(f) has held that only when cognizance is taken by the competent court of jurisdiction under Chapter XIV or XV of the Cr.P.C., the criminal case can be said to be pending in the Court. In this regard the coordinate bench in the case of Alok Chansoria (supra) has held that:-

"The question which arises for consideration is whether the registration of offence on an FIR could be said to be a criminal case pending in the Court. As it is not in dispute that on 7.2.2011 except FIR as to Crime No.413/2008, no further proceedings are commended at as would establish that criminal Court had taken the cognizance of offence registered vide Crime No.413/2008.

Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Chapter XIV deals with the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 190 thereunder empowers a Magistrate specified therein to take cognizance of an offence, upon receiving a complaint, or upon a police report or upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge.

Chapter XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before Magistrates. Section 204 whereunder envisages that "if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceedings, and the case appears to be a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or if he has no jurisdiction himself, some other Magistrate having jurisdiction", which necessarily is not the stage when an FIR is lodged and the investigation is still continuing.

Section 6(2)(f) of 1967 Act stipulates that "subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 27/02/2020 16:56:36 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP No.24973/19 foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely, that the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.

Since it is observed from the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code that it is only when cognizance is taken by the competent Court of jurisdiction either under Chapter XIV or Chapter XVI, as the case may be, it cannot be said that with the lodging of FIR, a criminal case is pending in the Court. The Passport Authority, thus, committed patent error in construing lodging of FIR vide Crime No.413/2008 to be criminal proceeding pending in the Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 is at loss to commend to any other provisions which empowers the passport officer to review/impound/revoke the passport even in a case where an FIR is lodged and the matter is under investigation.

The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the above analysis, cannot be given the stamp of approval. Consequently, while setting aside order-dated 6.3.2012 passed by Passport Officer, revoking the petitioner's passport bearing No.J3035868 and order-dated 4.2.2015, dismissing the petitioner's appeal; the passport issued to the petitioner on 17.3.2011 is hereby restored.

Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs."

No material has been pointed out by counsel for the respondents to show that any court of competent criminal jurisdiction has taken cognizance in any criminal case as against the petitioner. Hence, in view of the above judgment, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) or the notification dated 25.8.1993 cannot be attracted against the petitioner. So far as the order of this Court dated 10.1.2018 passed in WP No.5259/2017 relied upon by counsel for the respondent is concerned, that order was passed in different fact situation in a case wherein the charge sheet was stayed in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and a direction was sought for issuance of passport on the ground that the proceedings have been stayed. Hence, no benefit of the said order can be given to the respondents in the present case. That apart, there is also no material on record to show that the petitioner had any prior knowledge of registration of the FIR dated 3.1.2019 in Police Station Biaor Sadar, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 27/02/2020 16:56:36

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 WP No.24973/19 Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned notices dated 12.4.2019 and 6.5.2019 to the petitioner. Hence, the same are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off by directing the respondents to take appropriate expeditious steps for issuance of the passport, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

C.C. as per rules.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-

Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 27/02/2020 16:56:36

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court