Right To Privacy- Supreme Court Stays Order U/s. 91 Cr.P.C. For Production Of Passport Of Wife On Application Of Husband In 498A IPC Case

The present Petition was filed against the order passed by the Telangana High Court directing the wife to produce her Passport under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reversing the order of the trial court.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks… In the meantime, the direction for production of the petitioner’s passport is stayed. However, it is made clear that the proceedings i.e., CC No. 249 of 2012 should continue notwithstanding the present matter limited to the passport issue.”

AOR Abid Ali Beeran P appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-wife is the complainant and the Respondent-husband is facing the criminal proceeding before the Magistrate’s Court at Hyderabad.

He submitted, “In course of the said proceeding, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and on the basis of her response in the cross- examination, the respondent No. 2 had filed the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for a direction on the petitioner to produce her passport for the purpose of further cross-examination. According to the counsel, the said prayer was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate under her order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P/4). However, the High Court under the impugned order has erroneously ordered for production of the petitioner’s passport to substantiate her claim on the travel from USA to India.”

He further submitted that the order of the High Court would have an implication for the privacy of the Petitioner and it was an incorrect decision as in the Application filed by the Respondent-husband before the High Court, the Petitioner-wife was not arrayed as a party.

The High Court had held that “The document sought to be produced is the passport of PW1. PWl is a witness, not accused. In fact, in her cross-examination on OL.IL.2O22, she stated that she can produce the passport if necessary. In the said circumstances, when the witness herself has volunteered to produce the passport, the same can be permitted. PW1 shall produce her passport for the purpose of cross-examination.”

Accordingly, the present petition is now listed for a later date.

Cause Title: Bezawada Chandravadana v. The State of Telangana & Anr.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates M Srinivas R Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P, Saswat Adhyapak and Joydip Bhattacharya