IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 476 of 2008 Rohitash Kumar Bhardwaj .……… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The petitioner is facing trial in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani for offences under Sections 420, 468, 472, 506 I.P.C. The petitioner intends to go abroad for attending international training programme and obviously he needs passport. In the application form that the petitioner is required to fill for obtaining the passport, there is a column which requires the petitioner to give information as to whether any criminal case is pending against him before any court in India, etc. etc. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the petitioner is required to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the criminal court where the case is pending. Because the petitioner wanted to apply for obtaining the passport and because the aforesaid criminal case is pending against him in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, he made an application for granting of ‘No Objection Certificate’. Vide order dated 18th July, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, the permission was declined. The revision filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital was dismissed vide order dated 21st July, 2008 2 on the ground that it was not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. In answer to the petition, affidavit has been filed by Shri H.B. Sen, Senior Sub Inspector, Police Station Lal Kauan, District Nainital in the Court today which is affirmed by the said deponent on 28th July 2008. Para 6 of this affidavit reads thus:- “6. That the deponent most respectfully prayed that against applicant there is another case registered being Case crime No. 642 of 05 under section 394, 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Lalkuan and he will be permitted to go abroad there is every apprehension that he may not return to India, hence he is not entitled for any relief by this Hon’ble Court.” A bare reading of para 6 reveals to the Court that in addition to the aforesaid case pending against the petitioner in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, one more case is pending against the petitioner. When I read this para, I asked Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, about the pendency of a second case against the petitioner. Mr. Kaushik stated at the Bar that only one case is pending against the petitioner and the aforesaid averment in para 6 (supra) is false and incorrect. Actually, to support Mr. Kaushik’s statement at the Bar, the petitioner himself has filed his affidavit in which he has clearly rebutted the aforesaid factual assertion in para 6 by stating that only one case is pending against the petitioner. Sri H.B. Sen, the deponent of the aforesaid affidavit has filed a second affidavit today afternoon when the case was again taken up for consideration. In para 3 of this affidavit, the deponent has stated that the information given in the earlier affidavit in para 6 was incorrect. 3 The case pending against the petitioner indeed is not a very serious case. Actually there are cross cases. Whereas the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against one Kumari Shipli on account of dishonouring of a cheque, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner at the instant of Kumari Shipli by her father complaining and alleging that the petitioner had stolen the cheque in question and used it for being presented in the bank for encashment. The case pending against the petitioner, therefore, based on the aforesaid allegation cannot be called as a serious matter depriving the petitioner of issuance of a passport. Whether, ultimately, the competent court permits the petitioner to travel abroad or not is an issue which the competent court has to decide in due course at appropriate stage of the case, but that is a different matter altogether. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani is directed to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the petitioner. Coming to the issue of making a false statement in the affidavit of Sri H.B. Sen, I find prima facie that Sri H.B. Sen indeed has made a false statement on oath. A prima facie case is accordingly made out for ordering his prosecution by filing of a complaint in a competent court. Before however I do that, I must offer him an opportunity of showing cause. H.B. Sen accordingly is directed to show cause by filing his reply against the proposed prosecution before the next date. He shall remain present in person also. List on 27th August, 2008. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 31.7.2008 Avneet