LI Network
Published on: 26 July 2023 at 17:06 IST
The Supreme Court of India has settled a legal dispute concerning the return of a passport in the context of a matrimonial disagreement. The case, involved Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, the appellant, seeking the return of his passport, which had become linked to a case filed against him by his wife, the fourth respondent.
The case involved Sections 498-A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
During the investigation, the police issued a notice to the appellant, asking him to produce his passport under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Subsequently, the appellant’s passport was handed over to the Regional Passport Office in Hyderabad (the third respondent), leading to a correspondence between them.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal on behalf of the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, key issues in the case were highlighted, and a detailed analysis of the legal aspects involved was provided.
The appellant argued that the power to impound a passport lies solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967.
Justice Oka referred to a previous Supreme Court decision in the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that the police had no authority to impound passports. Furthermore, since there was no record of the passport being seized or impounded, the requirement for its submission was deemed illegal.
The judgment stated, “We fail to understand why the appellant’s passport was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the exercise of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal.”
Regarding the High Court’s condition of returning the passports of the appellant’s wife and son as a prerequisite for his passport’s release, the Supreme Court declared it “completely illegal.” The Court clarified that since the appellant had followed the prescribed procedure for reporting the loss of his son’s passport in the USA, the son’s passport reissue application should be processed accordingly.
The bench further asserted, “The condition of returning the passport of the 4th respondent [wife] could not have been imposed at all as the act of the Passport Officer of retaining the appellant’s passport was completely illegal.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, partly overturning the High Court’s order. It directed the concerned Regional Passport Office to process the wife’s application for a reissued or fresh passport without requiring additional proof of loss.
The appellant was also required to cooperate with his wife’s application and provide necessary documents as per the Passport Rules, 1980.