Judgment : Per K. VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 2nd respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.7.2006, passed in W.P. (MD) No. 6477 of 2006. 3.1 The case of the appellant is that the 3rd respondent is her legally wedded husband and the marriage was solemnized on 18.10.2000. Her further case is that she preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on 12.7.2006, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the 3rd respondent and some of his family members. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed the said complaint to the second respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and to register a case. Accordingly, a case has been registered on 13.7.2006 in Crime No.25 of 2006 on the file of the second respondent Police under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the third respondent and some others. According to the case of the appellant, the said criminal case is pending against the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is searching for the 3rd respondent and his family members to arrest them. 3.2 The further case of the appellant is that the 3rd respondent is working as a Seaman in USA owned ship and having passport bearing No.F. 8459875 issued by the 1st respondent herein. The appellant claims that the 3rd respondent is trying to flee form the country and he has made all arrangements to go abroad. Hence, a representation was submitted by the appellant to the 1st respondent on 15.7.2006 to impound the passport of the 3rd respondent. Since the 1st respondent did not consider the representation of the appellant, the writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of manda-mus directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appellants representation, dated 15.7.2006 and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to impound the passport or travel documents of the 3rd respondent and also to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to prohibit the departure of the 3rd respondent from India and for other orders. 4. 4. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant observed that if the criminal case is pending, as alleged by the appellant, the appellant can very well give all the details to the Investigating Officer and the investigating officer could take appropriate action as provided for under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It has been brought to our notice that on a complaint that has been preferred by the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on 12.7.2006, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has passed the following orders: “Heard. Perused the complaint and documents filed. Reasons are satisfactory that A1 leaving India to America for Job. Prima facie case made out. Hence the complaint is directed to All Women City Police to investigate the case immediately and if necessary FIR may be lodged. The proceedings of the complaint shall be reported to the Court as soon as possible. Hence complaint is directed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for necessary action.” 6. It is also pointed out that a case has been registered by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, in Crime No. 26 of 2006 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the 3rd respondent and some others. Further, it seen from the endorsement of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayam-kottai, that the FIR and the appellants statement have been sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and the copies of the same were sent to the higher officials. It is further seen that a copy of the same has been sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Town (i/c Palayamkottai) for investigation. 7. The counsel for the appellant, on the said facts, states that prosecution has been launched against the 3rd respondent under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Section 10 (3)(e) of the Act reads as under. “10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents.- (1) …. (2) …. Counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Section 10 (3)(e) of the Act reads as under. “10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents.- (1) …. (2) …. (3) The Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,- (a) ……… (b) … (c) …… (d) …… (e) if any proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a Criminal Court in India. 8. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, by his order dated 12.7.2006, directed the All Women City Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to investigate the complaint immediately and if necessary to lodge the FIR and the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, has taken further action, we are able to see that criminal proceedings in respect of an offence is pending against the 3rd respondent and at this stage he cannot be allowed to go scot-free. 9. As stated above, criminal proceedings in respect of an offence under Section 498-A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been initiated and follow-up action has been taken by the concerned Police Officials. Hence, instead of dismissing the writ appeal, we deem it fit to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 15.7.2006, taking into account the above facts which have been stated by us and pass appropriate orders, in one way or the other, after affording an opportunity to the 3rd respondent, as per law. It is also open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders for impounding the passport of the 3rd respondent, as an interim measure, if so needed. 10. The writ appeal is ordered as per the above terms. No costs. Connected M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2006 is closed.