Impounding Passport Not Mandatory If Criminal Case Related To Matrimonial Discord Is Pending: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that impounding a passport under Section 10 (3)(e) of the Passports Act is not mandatory when a criminal case related to a matrimonial discord is pending against a passport holder.
The Court clarified that although Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act) allowed impounding of a passport if criminal proceedings were pending, the legislature used the word "may," indicating that the passport officer had discretion and impounding was not mandatorily required in every case of pending proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed, “We find that the legislature under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 had deliberately used word ‘may’ meaning thereby that in the eventualities enumerated under Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1967 of the passport officer by recording reasons can impound passport but it is not necessary that in every case falling under Section 3 the passport officer is mandatorily required to impound the passport.”
Advocate Suhel Ahmad Azmi appeared for the petitioner.
An FIR was lodged against the Petitioner, a resident of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by his wife under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019.
Section 10 (3) (e) of the Act provides that the passport authority can impound a passport if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport are pending before a criminal court in India.
The High Court observed that the passport officer in the present case had decided to impound the petitioner’s passport only on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner.
The Court stated that neither did the passport officer consider the facts of the criminal case nor did he record reasons to conclude that the petitioner may misuse his passport to avoid his presence before the criminal court or to delay the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
The Court noted that the legislature under Section 10 (3) (e) gave power/discretion to the passport authority to impound a passport of a person on the ground of pending proceedings concerning an offence in the criminal court.
“We find that a criminal case relating to a matrimonial discord is pending against the petitioner in the criminal court and proceedings of the said case have been stayed by the High Court and mediation proceedings in between the parties are in process,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Bench held, “The impugned decision of impounding petitioner’s passport contained in impugned order is quashed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the entire matter, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Mohammad Umar v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:118592-DB)
