Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 522 (KAR)

Daniel S. Farid v. Union of India

2015-05-14

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2015
ORDER 1. Smt. Syeda Shehnaz, learned Central Government counsel is directed to take notice for respondents. 2. The petition is considered for final disposal at the stage of preliminary hearing, having regard to the facts and circumstances. The petitioner is said to be an 18 year old student who has participated in several State and National events conducted by the Badminton Association of India and the Karnataka Badminton Association. He has represented India in the age group of Under 15 in October, 2001 in Japan and has won Third place in the Ana Badminton Asia Youth Championship. He has also represented India under the age group of Under 17 in the Badminton Asia Youth Championship which was held in Indonesia in October, 2013 and has stood Third in the Under 17 Boys Single Badminton Championship. The petitioner was also declared Champion in three consecutive years, namely in 2012, 2013 and 2014 at Mandya, Chandigarh and Mysore respectively. He has won many titles throughout his career and had no criminal cases as alleged against him, though a case in Crime No. 297 of 2014 was instituted for offences punishable under Ss. 34, 420, 468 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner s-father was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the petitioner and his mother had obtained anticipatory bail and his father had obtained regular bail in Crime No. 297 of 2014. It is contended that the petitioner and his parents are innocent of any such alleged offences and it is denied as false that they have fabricated any documents, much less the document issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths in Form No. 5 dated 14-2-1997. It was however alleged by the Badminton Association of India that the petitioner was not eligible to play in the forthcoming tournaments conducted by it, pending enquiry into the fraud alleged. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 58346-58347 of 2014. This Court, by its order dated 18-12-2014, had permitted the petitioner to participate in the tournaments, national as well as international. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 58346-58347 of 2014. This Court, by its order dated 18-12-2014, had permitted the petitioner to participate in the tournaments, national as well as international. The High Grounds Police Station, after investigation of the case in Crime No. 297 of 2014, had not filed any charge-sheet against the petitioner, but he has been named as a witness in view of which, his existing Passport No. 19297609 which had expired on 19-1-2015, was not re-issued by the authorities. The petitioner had turned 18 on 20-1-2015 and had applied for re-issue of a passport on 6-2-2015 under the Tatkal Scheme as he was selected by the Badminton Association of India to represent the country for the Dutch and German Junior International Tournament which was to be held in Netherlands and Germany. It was brought to the attention of the passport authorities about his selection to represent India in the said Tournaments and sought for issuance of the passport. However, by an endorsement, it was declared that the application filed by the petitioner for re-issuance of the passport is on hold, pending completion of the Court proceedings in Crime No. 297 of 2014. This was questioned by way of a writ petition in W.P. No. 15345 of 2015 and this Court, by its order dated 22-4-2015, had directed the third respondent to re-consider his case and issue the passport, since the petitioner was arrayed as a witness and not as an accused. The Passport Officer however, has again issued another endorsement to state that notwithstanding the fact that he was not an accused but a witness, his request could not be considered. It is this which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. The Passport Officer however, has again issued another endorsement to state that notwithstanding the fact that he was not an accused but a witness, his request could not be considered. It is this which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. In terms of S. 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, it is evident that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document on the ground that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such Court and also when proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is pending before a Criminal Court in India. It is evident that there is no charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in the pending criminal case on allegations of fabrication of the Certificate of Date of Birth of the petitioner, though the petitioner has been named as a witness in the said case. 4. The stage of the criminal case is said to be for purposes of hearing before charge and the case is posted in the month of June, 2015. It is unlikely that the petitioner would be summoned as a witness during the next several dates of hearing, going by the manner in which the criminal proceedings would progress. Therefore, there is no summons issued to the petitioner at the present point of time. It would have certainly enabled the Passport Officer to deny the issuance of the passport if any such summons had been issued. 5. Since the petitioner is a young man who has already proved his mettle as a sportsman and as a national and international player, it would be unjust and unfair to deny re-issuance of the passport at this point of time, only because he is named as a witness in a pending criminal case. Notwithstanding the embargo which would apply, if there was any summons issued to the petitioner to appear as a witness on the next date of hearing before the Court below, it would be just and fair if the passport is issued notwithstanding that the petitioner is made a witness in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, Annexure-M is quashed. Notwithstanding the embargo which would apply, if there was any summons issued to the petitioner to appear as a witness on the next date of hearing before the Court below, it would be just and fair if the passport is issued notwithstanding that the petitioner is made a witness in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, Annexure-M is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue an ordinary passport as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 in the interest of justice, at the earliest, since the petitioner is bound to leave the country to participate at the International Tournaments commencing on 27-6-2015 in Netherlands and Germany. Smt. Syeda Shehnaz is permitted to file her memo of appearance within four weeks. Order accordingly.