RAJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of impugned order dtd. 20/4/2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur in the case stemming from FIR No.80 dtd. 23/3/2023 under Ss. 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab, vide which the petitioner was directed to produce the original passport before learned trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner along with co-accused was named in the FIR (supra). She was granted anticipatory bail and was regularly appearing before learned trial Court despite being an aged lady and suffering from various ailments. Yet, vide impugned order dtd. 20/4/2023 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was directed to produce her original passport before learned trial Court, which is totally illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of learned trial Court. Learned counsel further argues that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the power and jurisdiction to impound the passport of any individual has to be exercised as per the Passport Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'), which grants this power only to the passport authorities. Since the Act is a special statute, the procedure prescribed by it will prevail over the provisions of Cr.P.C., since Cr.P.C. is general in nature. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I., 2008 (3) SCC 674 and of this High Court in Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs. State of Haryana, 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 899.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is every possibility that the petitioner would flee from the process of law and would abscond from the prosecution. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly directed the petitioner to produce her passport. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.