Tino Abraham vs Regional Passport Office Trivandrum

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10937 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Tino Abraham vs Regional Passport Office Trivandrum on 12 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 15032 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         TINO ABRAHAM
         AGED 38 YEARS
         S/O. ABRAHAM MATHEW KANNAKUZHIYIL
         NADUKKETHIL, OTHERA P.O. TIRUVALLA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689551

         BY ADVS.
         K.DHRUV KUMAR
         M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
         SHAKTHI PRAKASH
         HARIKRISHNAN M.S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE TRIVANDRUM
         SNSM BUILDING, KARALKADA JUNCTION,
         PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024
    2    REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
         REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, SNSM BUILDING,
         KARALKADA JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O.,
         TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024

         BY ADV
         SRI.T.C. KRISHNA, CGC

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15032 of 2024
                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to consider Ext.P3 application and reissue a Passport with normal validity to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is an Indian citizen and holder of Passport No.U4842489. He was working in the United Kingdom as a registered Nurse. While he remained abroad, certain issues regarding the partition of assets arose in his wife's family and the petitioner was arraigned as an accused in two Crimes of Ranni Police Station numbered as 1004/2023 and 1064/2023 respectively.

3. This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the Crimes. Both the FIRs are in crime stage and Final Reports have not been filed yet. The allegations levelled are baseless and the present Crimes have been filed WP(C) No.15032 of 2024 3 with the sole intention to coerce the petitioners into succumbing to the illegal demands of the defacto complainant with regard to the family property. The petitioner wishes to go back to the United Kingdom. The petitioner has obtained permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court in compliance with the bail condition in Crime No.1064/2023.

4. The respondents have not considered Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner. The respondents are insisting on furnishing permission from the Magistrate's Court in the other Crime as well. It has been held by this Court in Muhammed v. Union of India and others [2018 (4) KHC 945] that a criminal proceeding is pending only when cognizance is taken and in the absence of a Final Report filed in court, a criminal case cannot be treated as pending. It was also held that mere registration of a Crime does not invoke either Section 6 or Section 10 of the Act and the police verification report must mention the stage of the Crime, contends the petitioner.

WP(C) No.15032 of 2024

4

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel Sri.T.C. Krishna representing the respondents.

6. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that there are two Crimes registered against the petitioner. The counsel submits that Crime No.1004/2023 of Ranni Police Station has been referred. As regards Crime No.1064/2023 of Ranni Police Station, by Ext.P5 order, the Magistrate has granted permission to the petitioner to go abroad for a period of three years. It is, however, to be noted that the said Crime No.1064/2023 is also in the crime stage and no Final Report has been published.

7. In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner's Ext.P3 application for reissuance of Passport for the normal duration can be considered by the Passport Officer. This is so because Final Reports have not been filed in both the Crimes.

WP(C) No.15032 of 2024

5

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P3 application for reissuance of the Passport of the petitioner and reissue the same for normal duration, if the petitioner satisfies all other parameters. This shall be done within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.15032 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15032/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12/12/2023 IN B.A. NO.10161/2023 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10/01/2024 IN B.A. NO.10504/2023 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF PASSPORT APPLICATION FORM DATED NIL Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF 'CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT' IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/01/2024 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE, RANNI DATED 04/04/2024 IN CMP NO.1807/2024 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/04/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 08/04/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT