SUNIL KUMAR @ ROCKY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dtd. 11/11/2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal in case bearing SC No. 208 of 2022, titled as State vs. Deepak @ Deepi and others, arising out of FIR No. 110 dtd. 25/7/2020, registered under Ss. 370, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 24 of the Emigration Act at Police Station Titram, Kaithal, whereby an application filed by the petitioner, seeking permission to go abroad, had been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid FIR and is facing trial therein. His passport has been deposited with the learned trial Court. The petitioner claims to be running an establishment in the name of Chanakya Study Abroad, which is a registered firm. His firm assists students to get admission in foreign institutions and also to get visa and complete other formalities in that regard. He had moved an application before the learned trial Court for releasing his passport and grant him due permission to visit European countries but the same had been dismissed by passing the impugned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned trial Court ignored the fact that he was running a business of immigration and it was necessary for him to go abroad with regard to his business as it has a direct impact on the academic future of several students. Learned trial Court also ignored the fact that the petitioner had previously been granted permission to visit Dubai, Taiwan and South Korea, vide orders dtd. 21/9/2023 and 22/3/2024 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) and he had never misused the said concession and after returning to India, he had deposited this passport with the learned trial Court. The aforesaid application of the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned trial Court only on the ground that he had not mentioned any specific date and also that he had mentioned in the head note and paragraph No. 6 of the application that he wanted to visit Dubai but in the later part of the application, he had mentioned that he wanted to visit Europe. It is argued that the said error was a bona fide typographical error as in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner intended to visit Europe. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the petitioner deserves to be granted permission to visit some Universities in Belgium, as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the petition, for a period of six weeks and also deserves to seek release of his passport. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authorities cited as 'Gaurav Raheja Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2010', 'Sarthak Tandon Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2406', 'Tarun Trikha Vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC Online SC 1879', 'Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2020) 10 SCC 77'.