Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Kaur vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14150 of 2022
Date of Decision: 27.09.2022
Inderjit Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate with
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanvi Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Additional Advocate General Punjab
for respondent No.3.
****
VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)
The grievance raised in this petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is that passport is not being re-issued to the
petitioner, even though there is no legal impediment for the same or
embargo contemplated under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for
short, 'the Act').
The petitioner was holder of the passport issued on 29.06.2012,
which was valid till 28.06.2022. Intending to go abroad for higher education,
she sought re-issue of passport and accordingly made an application dated
31.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) in that regard. The Regional Passport Office
(respondent No.2) vide letter dated 07.04.2022 intimated her that it was in
receipt of adverse police verification report (PVR) corresponding to her
1 of 6
application, referring to FIR No.171 dated 24.09.2020 under Sections 324,
323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Koom Kalan
Ludhiana, which the petitioner had also disclosed in her application for re-
issue of passport. In the meanwhile, petitioner received letter dated
26.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), from the University Canada West at Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, apprising that her admission had been accepted in
the Masters of Business Administration degree programme for the fall 2022
session. The said course is depicted to commence on 03.10.2022.
On notice, the third respondent i.e. SHO, Police Station Koom
Kalan, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana filed detailed reply stating therein
that the petitioner and her family has been implicated in the FIR noticed
above and there was also a cross case in that FIR. It is mentioned that on the
basis of report of the doctor, offence under Section 325 IPC was added in the
FIR vide DDR No.24 dated 06.01.2021. It has also been mentioned that
accused in the cross case, namely Pardeep Singh, Jaswinder Kaur, Paramjit
Kaur, Harwinder Kaur, Dharamjit Singh and Kamaljit Kaur were arrested on
10.09.2020 and thereafter on 13.09.2021, the accused in the FIR i.e. the
petitioner, Jagtar Singh (her father), Jagjit Kaur (her mother) and Jaspreet
Singh (her brother), were arrested in the case. However, accused Sahilpreet
Singh is still at large. It has also been brought on record that challan has not
been presented before the concerned Court and in that regard it is submitted
that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be presented after the arrest of
accused Sahilpreet Singh. The relevant pleadings in that regard, 0reads as
under:-
2 of 6
"11. That in reply to Para No.11 of the petition, it is
submitted here that the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. will be presented after the arrest of accused
Sahilpreet Singh, who is still at large. The detailed
reply has been given above."
Learned State counsel has filed the status report dated
27.09.2022 in Court, in deference to the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by
this Court, which is taken on record. Similar are the averments made in the
said status report.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits
that she has instructions to submit that in view of the reply filed by the
police authorities, it is now brought on record that the concerned Court has
yet not taken cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner. The
status report is also on the same lines and no indication has been given
therein as to when the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. would be submitted
before the concerned Court. Learned counsel further submits, on
instructions, that the passport authorities would consider the application of
the petitioner for re-issue of the passport, as the provisions of Section 6(2)(f)
of the Act are not attracted at this stage, keeping in view the above noticed
position and ratio of the judgment passed by this Court in Daler Singh vs.
Union of India and others, AIR 2015 P&H 206. It has been categorically
held therein that proceedings can be said to be pending before a criminal
Court only when cognizance has been taken by the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 of 6
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
above and as per the reply and status report filed on behalf of respondent
No.3, it is now doubly confirmed that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has
not been filed as yet and the stage for framing of charge has not arisen. As
the Court has not taken cognizance, no proceedings before the criminal
Court as referred to in Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, are pending. As such,
there is no legal impediment in re-issuing the passport to the petitioner.
It is well settled that issue/re-issue of passport could not be
refused, cancelled or impounded only on the ground of registration of FIR.
Reference is made to judgment of the coordinate Bench in Sahib Jaskaran
Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 798.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner
had applied for re-issue of passport well in time and has also herself
disclosed the fact of registration of the FIR in her application.
Thus, it is urged that in view of the above settled position in
law, the response filed by the police and the submissions made on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the second respondent be directed to expedite re-
issuing the passport so that petitioner could join the degree course at the
University, which is to start on 03.10.2022. It is also submitted that at this
stage the petitioner is only an accused and would suffer irreparable loss,
damage and much harm to her academic career in case petitioner is not
promptly issued the passport, there being no legal impediment for the same.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in
view of the instructions conveyed to her, the passport application of the
4 of 6
petitioner would be considered and processed, as per the prescribed
procedure.
Learned State counsel refers to para 7 of the reply dated
19.09.2022 filed on behalf of respondent No.3, to submit that the petitioner
wants to leave India for an uncertain period and her presence would be
required before the concerned Court after presentation of the challan and to
face trial, if charge is framed against her. Thus, her absence is likely to
hamper the trial.
The aforesaid reply or status report has not been controverted
by filing replication or counter affidavit. The factum that the petitioner along
with other members of her family was arrested on 13.09.2021 remains
uncontroverted as per the pleadings. However, no order prohibiting
departure from India of the petitioner has been placed on record or even
mentioned by the respondents. It is not in dispute that there is no legal
impediment or contravention of any statutory provision, disentitling the
petitioner from applying for or holding a passport.
In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the
direction to the second respondent to process the application of the petitioner
for re-issue of the passport, in accordance with law, as submitted on
instructions and noticed above. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to
represent to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, explaining the
urgency with supporting material for expediting the process for re-issue of
passport to her.
5 of 6
Needless to observe that in case such a request is made, the
same would be considered with compassion and keeping in view that the
petitioner had timely sought re-issue of the passport and processing of her
application was delayed for no fault directly attributable to her. If any
additional fees for expedited process is payable, like in the case of Tatkal
service, the same would be payable by the petitioner-applicant.
It is also made clear that this order does not in any manner
express any opinion with regard to the proceedings in the FIR case and the
petitioner would remain bound as such by the conditions of her bail bond/
bail order and the relevant provisions under which concession of bail is
granted to her.
This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
September 27, 2022
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
