Bombay High Court
Avinash Tikaram Chichkhede vs State Of Mah. Thr. The ... on 16 June, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 wp37.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.37/2022
Avinash Tikaram Chichkhede,
age 31, Occ. Medical Paediatrician,
R/o At Karambhad, Post Parseoni,
Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur 441 105. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Superintendent of Police
(Rural), Civil Lines, Near Providence
Girls School, Nagpur 440 001.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Parseoni Police Station, Dist. Nagpur
441 105.
3. Union of India,
through Regional Passport Officer,
CGO Complex, B Block First Floor
Seminary Hills, Nagpur Maharashtra
440 006.
4. Krushnaji Vishwanath Nagrare,
aged 66 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No.38, Samrat Ashok
Colony, Kashi Nagar, Rameshwari
Road, Nagpur, Mo. No.9372240674. ... Respondents
2 wp37.2022
-----------------
Mr. (Dr.) A.H. Jamal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. U.J. Damle, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S.A. Coudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. A.A. Pansare, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
----------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 16.6.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent.
2. The petitioner is a doctor by profession possessing
qualification M.D. Paediatrics and is interested in pursuing higher
studies in foreign university for which purpose, the petitioner has
received fellowship to serve in National Health Service at Walsall
Healthcare, Manor Hospital, U.K. The petitioner had applied for
issuance of passport but same is declined by the passport authority
on the ground that in the police verification report there is an
3 wp37.2022
adverse remark passed against him. Adverse remark relates to
pendency of a criminal case against him. This criminal complaint,
as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is pending
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court
No.2, Nagpur vide Criminal Complaint Case No.768/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if Court
permission to travel abroad is granted, the petitioner would be
issued passport. He also submits that since the J.M.F.C., Nagpur
has not taken any cognizance in Criminal Complaint Case
No.768/2019, it cannot be said that any criminal case is pending
against the petitioner.
4. Learned A.P.P. submits that in a case like this the petitioner
would have to approach the concerned Court of J.M.F.C. for
getting desired no objection which is also the submission of
learned counsel for the Union of India.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the
petitioner has wrongly stated that no cognizance of Criminal
4 wp37.2022
Complaint Case No.768/2019 has been taken by the trial Court.
In support, he has tendered to us a copy of the order dated 13
April 2022 which is taken on record and marked "A" for
identification.
6. On going through the document "A", we find that learned
counsel for respondent No.4 is right in submitting that the trial
Court has already taken cognizance of the Criminal Complaint
Case No.768/2019 vide order dated 13 April 2022 whereby the
court process has been issued against all the accused persons
including this petitioner under Sections 294, 506 and 448 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was made
returnable on 13 May 2022. If this is so, the competent Court for
the petitioner to seek no objection would be that of the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur before whom the said
criminal complaint case is pending. In such a scenario the only
Court which can consider the request for grant of no objection for
issuance of passport would be the Court where the criminal
complaint is pending. In this view of the matter, we are not
5 wp37.2022
inclined to entertain this petition and we relegate the petitioner to
the concerned criminal Court which is a trial Court at Nagpur for
the purpose of seeking no objection for obtaining passport, in
accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, we
direct that if any application seeking no objection for issuance of
passport is filed by the petitioner, same shall be decided after due
opportunity of hearing being given to the complainant by the trial
Court at the earliest, preferably within two weeks from the date of
filing of the application.
8. An authenticated copy of this judgment and order be given
to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO
TAMBASKAR
Private Secretary
Signing Date:16.06.2022 16:51
