NIDHI GOEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P7 order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate refusing to return the passport of the petitioner which was seized in connection with the investigation of a crime registered against her for the offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code is impeached in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. Petitioner, a lady, responded to a call for an interview to secure a job in an IT company. Later when she was given a posting to a foreign country and after a visa was also procured in her favour by the company, it is alleged, she resigned her job causing monetary loss to the employer. On a complaint filed by her employer alleging an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code on the aforesaid circumstances surrounding her resignation from the company a crime was registered which, after investigation, resulted in filing of a refer report opining that the transaction is of a civil nature and no offence is made out against her. Pending investigation the police had seized her passport and produced it before the court. After filing of the refer report she moved an application for release of her passport. The learned Magistrate initially allowed her request directing her personal presence for returning the passport produced by the investigating agency. However, later noticing that a protest complaint has been filed by the de-facto complainant impeaching the correctness of the refer report placed before the court, the learned Magistrate recalled the previous order and dismissed the application of the petitioner for release of the passport. Questioning the correctness of that order the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently and indisputably no offence under the Passport Act has been committed by the petitioner which, normally, would require the continuous retention of the passport even after investigation for the trial of the case. Even assuming that the allegations imputed in the complaint against the petitioner would make out a case for proceeding against her under Section 420 of the Penal Code, prima facie, retention of her passport for proving any of the ingredients covered by that offence is unnecessary. For presence of the petitioner before court in case further proceedings on the basis of the protest complaint against her is warranted the learned Magistrate can pass necessary orders. Release of the passport can also be made subject to furnishing an undertaking by her to produce the passport as and when called for by the court. Setting aside Ext. P7 order the learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application moved by the petitioner for release of her passport taking note of the observations made above and in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.