CRM No. M 25756 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25756 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Er. Gurbinder Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. J S Virk, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of his passport and realisation of FDR amounting to `10,00,000/- deposited in the favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patiala despite the cancellation report in FIR No. 22 dated 13.02.2008 having been accepted by the JMIC vide order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P2). CRM No. M 25756 of 2010 2 It is not disputed that the aforesaid FIR was cancelled and the cancellation report was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 14.11.2009. In spite of the same, the passport and FDRs have not been released to the petitioner on the ground that the litigation is pending. No doubt, a complaint has been filed. However, the petitioner has not been summoned in the aforesaid complaint. In pursuance to the order dated 25.02.2009 passed by this Court in CRM M 27689 of 2008, the petitioner had deposited a sum of `10,00,000/- with the trial Court in the shape of FDRs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he does not seek the release of aforesaid `10,00,000/- at this stage. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2008)3SCC 674 to substantiate his arguments that the passport can only be retained by the C.B.I. under Section 10-A of the Passport Act, 1967 and that too for four weeks. Learned counsel for the complainant states that he has no objection if the passport is released to the petitioner and if he is allowed to go abroad to attend the marriage of his son which is scheduled to be fixed on 09.10.2010 subject to his depositing security. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed as follows:- i) that the petitioner's passport shall be released forthwith subject to his furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court; ii) that the petitioner shall be further permitted to go abroad CRM No. M 25756 of 2010 3 from 01.10.2010 to 30.11.2010 to attend the marriage of his son; iii) that the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that he would come back by 30.11.2010 and shall appear before the trial Court and submit his affidavit. iv) That he shall furnish the detail of the address at abroad to the trial Court before leaving the country. It is, however, made clear that in case, any of the above conditions is violated by the petitioner, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- already deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court in the shape of FDRs shall stand forfeited. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 22, 2010 mohan