THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5156 of 2010 Date:19.04.2010 Between: Thota Nageshwar. ..... Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L. Ravichander, Sri Milind G. Gokhale. Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.2: -- Counsel for Respondent No.3: N. Srinivas, standing counsel for Central Government. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not recovering the petitioner’s passport bearing No.B2681648 from illegal possession of respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. No one appeared for respondent No.2 despite service of notice on her. Respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner. They have strained relations, which led to the parties giving report and counter report. A report given by respondent No.2 was registered as Crime No.349 of 2009 under Sections 294, 498-A, 452 and 384 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said case was registered on 31.07.2009. The petitioner lodged a private complaint in the Court of learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, which was referred to respondent No.1 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in pursuance thereof, Crime No.566 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 390, 307, 497, 452, 427, 379, 323, 365 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was registered against respondent No.2 on 20.04.2009. There is a dispute as to the factum of submitting a final report by the Police in the said crime while respondent No.1 in his counter-affidavit stated that such a report was filed. Sri L. Ravichander, learned counsel for the petitioner, filed a copy of endorsement given by the office of jurisdictional Magistrate as late as 30.03.2010 showing that final report has not been filed in the Court. However, this aspect may not be very much relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that Police have failed to recover his passport from respondent No.2 and deposit the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 has taken the stand that interrogation of respondent No.2 revealed that the petitioner has taken away his passport and that a complaint to this effect was given by her on 12.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously questioned the above stand of the Police by placing reliance on the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Warrangal town, dated 09.07.2009; order dated 05.08.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2009 by the Principal Sessions Court, Warangal, and order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Human Rights Commission in support of his plea that all the three authorities referred to above in their respective orders have categorically found that the passport was with respondent No.2. After carefully perusing the above orders, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Had the petitioner taken the passport from respondent No.2 as alleged in her complaint dated 12.07.2009, the learned Principal Sessions Court, Warangal, and Human Rights Commission would not have given the findings in their respective orders to the effect that the petitioner’s passport was in possession of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 has failed to consider these aspects in accepting the stand of respondent No.2 that petitioner has taken away his passport. Respondent No.1, therefore, is directed to initiate fresh action, by interrogating respondent No.2 and elicit true and correct information from her regarding the possession of the petitioner’s passport by her. If during such interrogation, he finds that the petitioner’s passport lies with respondent No.2, he shall deposit the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the period of four weeks from today. In the meantime, the petitioner is, however, permitted to approach jurisdictional Magistrate with an application to permit him to apply for duplicate passport. If such an application is filed, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the same and give permission required for applying for a duplicate passport to the petitioner in the event of the original passport not being traced. On the strength of such order to be passed by the Magistrate, the petitioner is permitted to apply to the passport officer for issuance of duplicate passport. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6633 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th April, 2010 GHN