ORDER 1. The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case, challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, dated 15.03.2012 made in C.M.P.No.543/2012 in C.C. No.62/2012, refusing to return the passport of the petitioner. 2. Mr.C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offence u/s.498-A IPC in C.C.No.62/2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore. According to the petitioner, though, the petitioner was born in India, he has now become a citizen of United States of America (USA) and he has got USA passport and he was given Indian VISA only to visit the country, which is valid upto the year 2017. Further, according to the VISA Rules, from the date of entry into India, the petitioner can stay in India only for six months at a stretch and thereafter, he has to return back to USA and can come back to India. If he does not go back to USA within a period of six months, the extended period will be considered to be illegal. According to the petitioner, the period granted for the current entry into India was valid only upto 06.08.2012 and the period has already expired. Much before the expiry of the said date, he has filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, and sought for return of the passport. Since, the petitioner's request was rejected, he came before this Court by way of filing this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that he will appear before the trial Court as and when his presence is required before the trial Court. He would further contend that his mother stood as surety, when bail bond was executed by the petitioner. He has also filed an affidavit of undertaking given by his parents that they will ensure the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court as and when his presence is required. 4. Apart from the above fact, learned counsel for the petitioner would add that the petitioner has lost his job. In order to get a job in USA, he has to return back to USA. 4. Apart from the above fact, learned counsel for the petitioner would add that the petitioner has lost his job. In order to get a job in USA, he has to return back to USA. As he is a citizen of USA, he has got permanent address in USA and his permanent address in USA is also mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, for merely facing the trial, the petitioner cannot be compelled to stay in India. The petitioner is facing the charge for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A IPC, which is more of a family dispute. According to the petitioner, the trial Court has dismissed the petition only on the apprehension that the petitioner will not return back to India for facing the trial, as he holds the Foreign National Passport. According to the petitioner, in view of his parents residing in India and they stand as sureties, he will not jeopardize their health or wealth. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he will come back to India for facing the trial before the trial Court as and when his presence is required. Today (23.08.2012), he has also filed an affidavit before this Court to the effect that the trial can be conducted in his absence and that he will not raise a plea at a later point of time that evidence has been recorded in his absence either during the course of trial or in appellate stage, as at his request, he has voluntarily gone to the Foreign Country. Considering the above submissions, learned counsel pleads for return of the passport. 5.Per contra, Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the first respondent would stoutly oppose this revision case on the ground that earlier, when the complaint was given, immediately, the petitioner returned to the Foreign Country and with very great difficulty, he was brought back to India and arrested and his apprehension is that once the petitioner goes back to USA, he may not at all come back and and the trial of the case would be put to jeopardy, hence, his apprehension has to be safeguarded in the best manner known to law. 6. Mr.K.Kalyana Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also opposed the application to return the passport. 7. 6. Mr.K.Kalyana Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also opposed the application to return the passport. 7. This court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward on either side and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, in C.M.P.No.543/2012 in C.C No.62/2012, dated 15.03.2012. By mutual consent of both sides, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 8. The main point, which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though, the petitioner was born in India and he was an Indian citizen originally, now, he has become a citizen of USA and he has got USA passport and he was given Indian VISA only to visit the country, which is valid upto the year 2017. Further, according to the VISA Rules, from the date of entry into India, the petitioner can stay in India only for six months at a stretch and thereafter, he has to return back to USA and can come back to India and that period of six months already expired on 06.08.2012. Much before the expiry of the said date, he already sought for return of the pass port, by way of filing the petition before the trial Court. But, the trial Court only on the apprehension that the petitioner may not return for facing trial, dismissed the petition. 9. According to the petitioner, his parents are residing in India. His aged mother stood as surety in the bail bond, which has been executed by the petitioner. Apart from this, in this revision, the petitioner's parents have given an affidavit of undertaking that they stand as sureties and they will ensure the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court as and when his presence is required, so that the trial can go on. He has also filed an affidavit to the effect that he will not in any way hamper the trial of the case and he undertakes to appear before the trial Court for facing the trial as and when his presence is required. He has also filed an affidavit to the effect that he will not in any way hamper the trial of the case and he undertakes to appear before the trial Court for facing the trial as and when his presence is required. Today, he has also filed an affidavit to the effect that the trial can be conducted in his absence and that he will not raise a plea at a later point of time that evidence has been recorded in his absence either during the course of trial or in appellate stage, as at his request, he has voluntarily gone to the Foreign Country. The contents of the affidavit, dated 23.08.2012 is recorded. 10. According to the petitioner, there is a legal impediment for him to continue to stay in India as he can stay in India only for six months at a stretch and thereafter, he has to return back to USA and that period of six months already expired on 06.08.2012. When the six months period expired, he has to necessarily go back to USA and thereafter, can come back to India. Since, it is a valid request that he cannot violate the Indian Law by overstaying for more than the six months period and also mainly because of his stay in India, he has already lost his job and unless, he goes back and gets a job in USA, he cannot survive, because the survival of a person is involved in this case, on humanitarian ground also, he should be given a chance to go back to USA and thereafter, come back to India for facing the trial before the trial Court. 11. 11. In view of the specific undertaking given by the petitioner as well as his parents, coupled with the fact that already the petitioner's mother stood as surety for the bail bond executed by him and also in the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, in C.M.P.No.543/2012 in C.C No.62/2012, dated 15.03.2012, is set aside and this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, is directed to return the passport to the petitioner, on his complying with the following conditions :- i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only), with one surety for a likesum, who shall be a Government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore. ii. The petitioner shall produce title deeds of immovable property as security to the value of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in respect of the property belonging to him or his immediate relatives. iii. The petitioner shall also file an affidavit of undertaking before the trial Court that he will appear before the trial Court for facing the trial as and when his presence is required. iv. In the said affidavit, the petitioner shall also furnish his residential address at USA, Telephone Number, Mobile Number and E-Mail I.D. Any change in any one of the contact address/numbers should be immediately intimated by the petitioner to the trial Court and also to the counsel for the other side. v. The petitioner is also directed to furnish the certified copy of the travelling document to the first respondent-police and also furnish one certified copy of the passport along with necessary VISA to the Court below. vi. On failure of the petitioner to comply with any one of the conditions stated supra or the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court for facing the trial as and when required, the trial Court is at liberty to take necessary action for securing his presence and also to take action against the sureties and the immovable properties, which are given in lieu of his absence during the course of trial. Consequently, connected M.P.No. 1 of 2012 is closed. There is no order as to costs.