Madras High Court
Lingam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1272 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1272 of 2025
Lingam : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep., by the Inspector of Police,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.87 of 2022
2.The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Street,
Race Course Road,
Madurai 625 002 : Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
4630 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi and set aside the same and grant no
objection for renewal of the petitioner's passport for a period of five years.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1272 of 2025
For R2 : Mr.S.Karthik
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner, who is an accused in CC.No.101 of 2024 and facing
trial for the offence under Sections 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC.
There was dispute with the neighbour and the relatives, the case has been
registered. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
employed in Dubai for the past 20 yeas and he has been given visa for two
years, which is renewal periodically. The petitioner family is residing in
his native. The petitioner's passport is getting expired and he has to renew
his passport. When the application of renewal was submitted, the second
respondent/passport authority informed that since the criminal case is
pending, the petitioner is entitled for one year renewal or any specific
period as prescribed by the Court. For that reason, the petitioner has filed
a petition in Cr.M.P.No.4630 of 2024. The trial Court though had narrated
in favour of the petitioner, but dismissed the petition, against which, the
present petition. Since the petitioner is the only bread winner of the
family, he sought for renewal for five years.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 3549, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the
passport authority to process the application of the applicant therein
without raising objection relating to pendency of the Criminal Appeal and
granted permission for renewal of the Passport. The only apprehension is
that the petitioner should be available during the trial, to which the
petitioner undertakes to appear and assures that he will not be the cause of
any delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, seeks direction of this Court.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the
dispute between neighbors and relatives. The petitioner is facing case and
trial is not pending. There are totally 11 accused in this case and the case
is not pending at the instance of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Passport
Authority submitted that in this case, the petitioner is an under-trial and
not a convict. It is the regular practice that when the Passport Authorities
become aware of any criminal case pending against an applicant, the
passport is put on hold. If there is no objection from the concerned Court,
the passport may be renewed. Normally, individuals facing criminal cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are not granted the standard renewal period of ten years, and the renewal is
restricted based on the Court's order. If appropriate orders are issued, the
Passport Authority has no objection to renew the petitioner's passport.
5. Considering the submissions and after perusing the materials, this
Court finds that the right to travel is a fundamental right and cannot be
denied merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant.
Admittedly, the petitioner is only an under-trial and not a convict and the
appearance of other accused is yet to be completed. The issue arises out of
sharing of common area between neighbors. The petitioner employed in
Dubai for the past twenty years and he needs to travel abroad in
furtherance of his career and life prospects. In view of the same, this
Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the
impugned order is set aside and the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Kadaladi, is directed to give no objection for renewal of the
petitioner's passport for a period of five years, subject to the condition that
whenever the petitioner intends to travel abroad for employment, he must
file an affidavit detailing his travel itinerary, place of stay, communication
details, and an undertaking that his identity will not be disputed at any
point of time. Furthermore, the petitioner must agree to the recording of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence and ensure that his travel will not cause any delay in the progress
of the trial and he shall appear before the trial Court on the specified dates
when his presence is absolutely necessary.
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed.
24.01.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Rmk
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Street,
Race Course Road,
Madurai 625 002
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Rmk
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
