CRM No. M-26539 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-26539 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2009 Hari Kishan Goel ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of order dated 8th July, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad as also order dated 18th March, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad whereby prayer of the petitioner for release of passport was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for release of passport. According to him, there is no power vested in the court for impounding the same. He has, thus, prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. The petitioner is facing trial in a case registered against him under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC. During the CRM No. M-26539 of 2009 2 trial, petitioner moved an application for release of his passport. However, the prayer was declined by the trial court. It observed that passport of the petitioner was released for renewal, subject to surety vide order dated 30th August, 2009. After renewal, the petitioner deposited the passport with the court on 21st January, 2009. However, the same could not be released in view of the order dated 21st August, 2007, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The same was rejected on the ground that the passport of the petitioner was not impounded in exercise of the powers under Section 104 Cr.P.C. The passport was only deposited pursuant to the bail order dated 21st August, 2007, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, vide which he was directed to deposit the passport within a week, which the petitioner accepted. The revisional court observed that the bail was subject to the condition that the petitioner would not leave India without permission of the court and thus, he was directed to deposit his passport in the court. The revisional court, however, permitted the petitioner to move an application for permission to leave India and directed the trial court to decide the same afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment rendered as Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Criminal Law Journal 1599 before the courts below. However, both the courts came to the conclusion that ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. CRM No. M-26539 of 2009 3 In my considered view, the present petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner accepted the order dated 21st August, 2007 including the condition imposed therein for deposit of passport. He took benefit of the bail order. Pursuant to same, he was enlarged on bail and he voluntarily deposited his passport with the trial court. The same was released for renewal, whereafter he again deposited the same in the trial court on 21st January, 2009. The revisional court permitted the petitioner to move an appropriate application to leave India after seeking permission from the trial court. It directed that in case the trial court comes to the conclusion that petitioner should be permitted to go abroad, his passport may be released to him subject to such conditions as the trial court may deem fit. I am, thus, of the considered view that the present petition is totally frivolous in nature. It is inexplicable why inherent jurisdiction of this court has been invoked despite liberty given by the revisional court to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the trial court for permission to go abroad. Normally, such a petition would deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, this court is refraining from passing any order in this regard as it is of the view that the petitioner may not have been correctly advised. In my considered view, the petition is devoid of any merit. The same is, thus, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 22, 2009 'rajpal'