1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1025 OF 2009 1 Abdul Wasim s/o Abdul Rahim, age 25 years, occupation Trade, r/o House No. 1-16-65, Madina Masjid, Near Dena Bank, Juna Bazar, Aurangabad ...Petitioner VERSUS 1 The Union of India through the Regional Passport Officer, having its office located at Manish Commercial Center, 216-A, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 2 The District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad, through its Registrar, 3 The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Shri Bipinchandra K. Patil, advocate holding for Shri Hemant Surve, advocate for the petitioner Shri Alok Sharma, Standing counsel for respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 deleted as per court order dated 12.11.2009 Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, APP for respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 05.01.2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Hardas, J.) 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, ths petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 The petitioner, who was desirous of obtaining a passport, had submitted an application before the authorities seeking the issuance of passport to him. The petitioner was served with a communication dated 25.6.2008 informing the petitioner that as per the report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad City, offence vide Crime No. 185 of 2000 was pending against the petitioner in the court of law. The petitioner was also informed that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pendency of the afore said criminal case and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him. 3 The petitioner, on being served with the afore said communication, sought necessary instructions in respect of the pendency of Crime No. 185 of 2000. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the information obtained by him under the Right to 3 Information Act and according to the petitioner, Crime No. 185 of 2000 which is registered under Sections 324,and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is in respect of some other person and the said crime does not relate to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 25.6.2008 and also prays for directing respondent no.1 to deal with the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 4 On notice of this petition being served on the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. The affidavit in reply discloses that one Mohd. Khalik Mohd. Yakub had lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had assaulted the brother of the complainant and accordingly an offence came to be registered against the petitioner. The investigation of the said crime was entrusted to one R.E.Mate who was a Head Constable. Though the charge sheet in the said offence was ready, the same was not filed before the competent court and the investigating officer expired some time in the year 2006 on account of a massive heart attack. The relatives of the deceased Head Constable were not aware about the necessary documents and, therefore, record was not available at the police station. Ultimately, the charge sheet was prepared or 4 an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and came to be submitted before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board in November, 2009. The affidavit in reply further discloses that the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad rejected the application for condonation of delay for the reasons which are stated in the said order. Consequent upon the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the charge sheet has been automatically rejected. 5 The events, stated above, clearly disclose that as on today no criminal prosecution can be said to be pending against the petitioner, particularly relating to an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In that light of the matter, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the authorities need to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of a passport, afresh in accordance with law. 6 Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner, afresh in accordance with law, 5 subject to such further order, which a competent court may pass in respect of challenge to the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad in respect of the rejection of application for condonation of delay. 7 Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crwp1025.09