THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.781 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner holds passport, bearing No.E6504631. She is residing in United States, for the past five years, and she is said to be a green card holder. The relationship between herself and her husband, suffered a set back, and that led to divorce between them. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagityal, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner, alleging that she collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, from him, with a promise to secure employment in U.S.A, but has deceived him. Summons were issued to the address of her husband. This obviously resulted in non-service of the summons. The trial Court, however, proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not turn up, even after receipt of the summons. That was followed by a proclamation to the effect that the petitioner is an absconder. The 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.15241 of 2006, before this Court, alleging that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad did not take any steps to impound the passport of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, on 08.09.2006, directing the Regional Passport Officer to consider the representation, dated 19.06.2006, said to have been made by the 3rd respondent. The Consulate General of India, New York, the 2nd respondent, addressed a letter, dated 22.11.2006, directing the petitioner to explain as to why the passport be not impounded. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 26.12.2006 and handed over the passport to the 2nd respondent. On his part, the 2nd respondent issued a letter, dated 19.11.2009, directing that the passport of the petitioner is impounded, as per the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 16.06.2007. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri K.Vivek Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner became the victim of the conspiracy between the 3rd respondent, on the one hand, and her husband, on the other hand. Knowing fully well that she is residing separately from her husband, the 3rd respondent submitted a complaint, that too, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging certain acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the summons were served on the petitioner and that she remained indifferent. A proclamation was also issued to the effect that the petitioner is an absconder. Without stopping at that, the 3rd respondent filed a writ petition and obtained a direction to the authorities of the Ministry of Home Affairs to proceed against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent. On her part, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, narrating the relevant facts. It hardly needs any mention that impounding of passport of an individual visits him with serious consequences and virtually impairs his employment and the freedom to travel to the place of his/her choice. Such an action can be taken only by following the procedure prescribed by law. The Passports Act (for short ‘the Act’) prescribes a detailed procedure, in relation to the circumstances, under which the passport of an individual can be impounded. Even where the circumstances mentioned in Section 10 of that Act are found to be present, a finding to that effect must be recorded by the concerned authority. The impugned order, which is brief and precise, reads as under: “Please refer to your letter dated October 29, 2009. Your passport had been impounded as per Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India instructions dated June 16, 2007.” Had there been any sincerity on the part of the 3rd respondent, he ought to have pointed his attention, in procuring the presence of the petitioner to India. On the other hand, curiously enough, he wanted the passport of the petitioner to be impounded. That naturally would result in the petitioner remaining in U.S., and rendering it difficult for her, to move out of that country. The petitioner states that her father is ailing and it is necessary for her to travel to India. Her presence in India would, in fact, benefit to the 3rd respondent also. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the 2nd respondent is set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to restore the passport of the petitioner forthwith. It is further directed that till the petitioner enters her appearance in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagityal and files an application, she shall not be subjected to arrest, or other proceedings, in relation to C.C.No357 of 2005. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.02.2010. GJ