In, Gaurav Raheja vs state of Punjab & Another, the Single Bench of the Punjab & Haryana has held that, expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is widest amplitude, which includes the right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.
Facts
The petitioner is enmeshed in matrimonial litigation and FIR, registered by his wife. He the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, which was made absolute order. Still further, the investigation is complete and final report under Section 173 of the Code has been presented qua the petitioner and other accused. Counsel asserts that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia passed by this Court, he was granted permission, subject to conditions mentioned therein, to travel to Australia for a period of six months. The time period was extended by this Court and the petitioner returned to India before the expiry of the extended period. He urges that despite being jobless, the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court and pursuant thereto, he is making payment of arrears of maintenance in ten monthly installments.
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of impugned order Judicial Magistrate First Class, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for permission to go to Australia for a period of six months to take up employment, has been rejected.
Contention Made
Petitioner: That the petitioner be permitted to avail the offer and travel to Australia. By making a reference to affidavit submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit property papers of his father's house, as security and he will abide by any other condition imposed by this Court.
Respondent: that the impugned order is revisable and the present petition is not maintainable. It has been asserted that the job offer with the petitioner is not genuine and once permission is granted to the petitioner, he is not likely to return.
Court Observation
The Single Bench of Punjab & Haryana HC while deciding the issue of maintainability of petition observed that; Under Section 397(2) read with Section 401 of the Code, there is a specific bar to the exercise of revisional power against an interlocutory order.
- Further in , M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus M/s Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others (2001) 7 SCC 401, Apex Court is of the view that an interlocutory order is one which does not finally culminate the criminal proceedings.
- Hence, the impugned order falls within the ambit of Section 397(2) of the Code. As revision against such an order is barred, an aggrieved person has no other remedy, but to invoke the inherent power of the High Court.
- Further the bench while deciding the determine the genuineness of the job offer observed that; that expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a widest amplitude, which includes the right to go abroad.
Court Judgment
The Punjab & Haryana HC while disposing off the petition has held that, the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting his application for permission to travel to Australia is not sustainable and the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, deserves to be set aside. Hence the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad for the period of six months, subject to conditions imposed by the court.
Case: Gaurav Raheja vs state of Punjab & Another.
Citation: CRM-M-19373-2022 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice Suvir Sehgal
Decided on: 5thAugust, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latest
Picture Source :
