IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7652 of 2008 Between: Mrs. Chitti Deepti .. Petitioner AND Chitti Srinivas Reddy and others .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the order in Crl.M.P. No.1529 of 2008, dated 10-11-2008 in Crl.M.P. No.1450 of 2008 in Crime No.349 of 2008 in C.C. No.1208 of 2008 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and of the Public Prosecutor for the 5th respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel representing Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 5th respondent. The criminal petition has been filed to suspend the order in Criminal M.P. No.1529 of 2008 in Criminal M.P. No.1450 of 2008 in Crime No.349 of 2008 in C.C. No.1208 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, dated 10-11-2008, by which the learned Sessions Judge substituted the words “along with their passports” with the words “along with attested copies of their passports” and deleting the words “not to leave India before disposal of the Criminal Case against them” and substituting with “to cooperate in disposal of Criminal Case against them by making effective representation” in the order, dated 21-10-2008 in the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge did so following the decision in Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab[1]. The grievance of the petitioner is that taking advantage of the impugned order, respondents 1 to 4 took return of their original passports and are leaving the country to United Kingdom, due to which the further proceedings in the Criminal Case will come to a stand-still. In Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1 supra) relied on by the Court of Session and also the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 herein, the Apex Court positively held that the direction for seizing the passport of the accused could not have been given in a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principle is binding on the Court of Session as well as this Court and consequently, the modification of the original order by the Court of Session cannot be found fault with. Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that in case, any of the respondents 1 to 4 propose to leave the country, they will do so only after giving prior intimation to the Court of Session and that they are always available for submission to the judicial process in accordance with the directions of the Court from time to time. The offer is but fair. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed, but, in case any of the respondents 1 to 4 propose to leave the country, they shall do so only after prior intimation to the trial Court with notice to the petitioner at least a month in advance of their proposed departure from the country. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-09-2009 Svv [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2068