THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24641 OF 2020
Date:05.01.2021
Between:
Renikunta Sharath Kumar,
S/o. Gnaneshwar, aged 29 years,
Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.19-7-44,
Lakshmi Nagar, Godavarikhani,
Adilabad District .. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24641 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the
respondents.
2. According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of
the writ petition, there is an inter se dispute between the petitioner
and his wife. Wife of the petitioner lodged complaint with the
Women Police Station Srirampur, Mancherial. On 07.10.2020,
based on the complaint lodged by wife of the petitioner, Crime
No.27 of 2020 was registered. Petitioner alleges that in the process
of investigation into the said crime, the passport of the petitioner
was seized and retained by the police. In this writ petition,
petitioner seeks declaration of the action of respondent No.2 -
police in seizing his passport as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the
Indian Passports Act, 1967 and seeks further direction to release
the passport.
3. In support of his contention that passport cannot be seized
by the police and kept with them, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High
Court in Crl.P.No.7971 of 2014 and the judgment rendered by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.P.No.7063 of 2019.
4. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home, after completing the investigation, on 29.10.2020, police
have field charge sheet in the Court of the II Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, learned Judge took cognizance 3
of the offence and registered the case as C.C.No.684 of 2020 and
petitioner is facing trial in the said case. Along with the said
charge sheet, the passport of the petitioner was also deposited
in the Court. He therefore submits that if the petitioner seeks
release of the passport, he has to file appropriate application in the
said Court.
5. There are two aspects to be noticed from the decisions relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, ordinarily the
police are not entitled to seize the passport and retain it with them.
Secondly, if the police apprehend that the accused are likely to flee
from the country, they must file an appropriate application under
the provisions of the Indian Passports Act, 1967, praying to
impound the passport, but they cannot retain the passport.
6. In Crl.P.No.7063 of 2019, learned Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court observed in paragraph No.9 of the order that
the police have a right to merely seize any property in connection
with the crime, but they cannot retain the passport under Section
102 Cr.P.C. The power of impounding the passport is not available
to the police. In other words, learned Judge was observing that
police have to deposit the passport with the concerned Magistrate
or take appropriate steps as required under the Indian Passports
Act, 1967.
7. In the instant case, police have already completed
investigation, filed charge sheet and the II Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Mancherial, took cognizance of the crime. The
passport was deposited in the Court. If the petitioner intends 4
to secure the passport, he has to file appropriate application before
the concerned Court.
8. Since the matter is seized by the competent Court, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is
accordingly disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate application in the Court of the II Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. Pending miscellaneous
petitions shall stand closed.
___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date:05.01.2021 KH 5
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24641 OF 2020
Date:05.01.2021
KH
