The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Regional Passport Officer to decide the application moved by Singer Sapna Choudhary for renewal/re-issue of her passport and pass an order within 1 month.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Ms Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been for grant of permission/No objection for issuance of Passport to the applicant Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary presently residing at: ATS Kocoon, Section 109, Gurugram, Haryana in Case under Section 406/420 I.P.C, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow in so far it relates to the applicant, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Lucknow be setting aside order dated 21.12.2023.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that on 13.10.2018, the respondent No 2 who is posed as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow lodged a complaint/application against the applicant and others. Upon the aforesaid application on 14.10.2018, an F.I.R got registered in Case under Section 406/420 I.P.C Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the passport was issued to the applicant by the Regional Passport Office concerned. The validity of the said passport has expired.
Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant is an artist/ actress and is required to travel to various destinations/ countries for her performances and she is required to move an application seeking permission to travel abroad every time she travels. The entire process is not only causing difficulty to the petitioner but also putting burden upon the trial court and due to the issuance of the short validity passport to the applicant, the applicant is unable to get visas for many host countries where she is required to perform or to attend functions, which is resulting in loss of business and income to the applicant and she prays for permission/NOC to get her passport renewed for the period of 10 years.
Counsel for the applicant said that an application was filed by the applicant before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Lucknow for grant of permission for renewal of passport, which was rejected by means of order dated 21.12.2023 observing therein that the Court has no jurisdiction for granting the permission of renewal of passport.
The Court observed that,
The Court after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) this court is of the view that right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in addition thereto a careful reading of provisions of the Passport Act and the Notification dated 25.08.1993 alongwith the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it’s legislative backgrounds, it is clear that passport or travel document of a person, who is facing trial can be refused by the authority concerned during pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar for giving no objection by the court concerned. No hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.
It is always discretion of the court concerned and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, act and conduct of the accused as well as nature of alleged offence committed by him/her and stage of trial, etc. Some time on account of enmity or ill will one party enmesh the other party in a frivolous criminal case to settle his personal score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the matter and surrounding circumstances while granting or refusing the no objection for renewal or reissue of passport or travel documents by the court concerned or by the authorities concerned and the trial in the above case is not likely to conclude very soon. These were relevant factors to be considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
The trial court had completely ignored the Notification issued by Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993 as well as Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi while passing the impugned order and had rejected the application of the applicant for grant of permission for renewal/re-issue of passport, thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside/reversed.
“In view of above, in the light of the notification dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) and considering the larger mandate of the Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Lucknow, by means of which application for renewal/re-issue of passport of applicant was rejected, is hereby set aside and reversed”, the order reads.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C with following directions:
(i) The applicant shall move a fresh application along with a certified copy of this order for renewal/re-issue of her passport before the concerned Regional Passport Officer within 20 days from the date of this order.
(ii) In case such application is moved by the applicant, within the time stipulated by this Court, the concerned Regional Passport Officer/authority shall decide the application and pass an order for renewal/re-issue of the passport of the applicant within 01 month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after completing the due formalities in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall inform and take permission from the trial court concerned before going abroad and she shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed as directed by the trial Court and she shall be bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.