Crl. Misc. No. M-18596 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Misc. No. M-18596 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : July 8, 2011 * * * * * Malkiat Singh ............Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * * * Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. * * * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J (ORAL) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in Criminal Complaint No.565 dated 25.11.2003 titled as “Kuldip Singh vs. Sh. Madhor Ram etc” declining the permission to the petitioner to go abroad during the pendency of the trial The brief facts of the case are that Kuldeep Singh (respondent) filed a criminal complaint under Sections 506, 504, 406, 323 and 34 IPC before the Illaqa Magistrate, U.T, Chandigarh against as many as four persons including the present petitioner, who has been summoned by the Court. The petitioner is working as Crl. Misc. No. M-18596 of 2011 2 an Excise and Taxation Officer in the Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab filed an application to seek permission of the Court to get his passport renewed and to visit England from 1.6.2011 till 31.7.2011 on the pretext that his son Manjinder Singh has gone to England with his wife who is expecting her child there on 9.7.2011. Petitioner has submitted that his wife is working as S.S Mistress in Government High School, Fattudhinga, Distrcit Kapurthala. The petitioner along with his wife wanted to visit England to be on the side of their children at this crucial time of delivery of child. The said application was partly allowed by the learned Court below vide it order dated 30.5.2011 by permitting the petitioner for getting his passport renewed but his prayer for visiting England was declined. Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed, in which counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application has been dismissed by the learned Court below only on the ground that his relation with Kiran Chohan (alleged daughter-in- law) of the petitioner could not be proved. Learned Court below has not relied upon the photostat copies of the documents filed by the petitioner in his application. Counsel for the petitioner has attached the documents of the treatment of his daughter-in-law as well as Sponsorship Declaration of his son and Accommodation Certificate sent by him for the visit of his parents to England. He also relies upon two decisions i.e Chaitali vs. State of Punjab 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 521 and Arun Kapoor vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 594 to contend that every citizen has a fundamental and civil right to go abroad which cannot be curtailed during the pendency of a criminal case unless there is a specific order passed Crl. Misc. No. M-18596 of 2011 3 in that behalf based upon material. He has submitted that medical report of Dr. J.J Bright of the Health Centre, Wood Road, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, WV 6 8 NF shows that his daughter-in-law was 31 weeks pregnant as on 10.5.2011 in the document Annexure P-5, which confirms the pregnancy of his daughter-in-law. In the Sponsorship Declaration, Manjinder Singh who is the son of the petitioner, has mentioned that he earns 300 pounds per week and has 2500 pounds in his account in the HSBC Bank. In his Accommodation Certificate, he has mentioned that he owns an apartment at 13 Woodhouse Road, Tettenhall Wood, Wolverhampton WV 6 8JL which has 3 bedrooms, 1 family bathroom upstairs and 2 rooms (Front and Dining Rooms), 1 family kitchen and 1 W/C. Moreover the statement of Manjinder Singh dated 10.5.2011 in this regard is also annexed. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner would return from England on or before 6.8.2011 and would attend the Court on the next date of hearing. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to go to England during the pendency of the criminal case as he has failed to prove his relationship with Kiran Chohan. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Firstly, the offence complained is not heinous. Secondly, the petitioner is a Government Servant working as an Excise and Taxation Officer and his wife is also serving as a teacher in the Department of Education, Punjab. Therefore there is no possibility of their defying from justice. Thirdly, the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No. M-18596 of 2011 4 undertaken through his counsel that he would return before 6.8.2011 and would attend the hearing of the case on 6.8.2011. Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chaitali (supra) and Arun Kapoor (Supra) support his contention that it is a a fundamental right of the citizen to go abroad which cannot be curtailed during the pendency of a criminal case unless there be a specific order passed in that behalf based upon material to deny the permission to him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Order dated 30.5.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is hereby quashed. The petitioner is granted permission to visit England to look after his children and to assist his daughter-in-law in this crucial period. Petitioner is directed to come back to India on or before 6.8.2011 as undertaken by him before this Court. Petition is disposed of accordingly. JULY 8, 2011 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) ritu JUDGE