Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 741 (PNJ)

Urvi Aggarwal v. State of Haryana

2016-02-24

HARI PAL VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is for quashing of order dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, whereby her prayer for release of passport has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is third round of litigation for the petitioner, as earlier also, similar petitions i.e. CRM-M-17854-2015 followed by CRM-M-33160-2015 were filed on behalf of the petitioner for the similar relief as prayed for in the present petition and the same were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders passed therein. He further submits that the petitioner has never violated the conditions laid down in the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and has always reported back, as directed. Learned State counsel has argued that since the petitioner is one of the directors of the accused-company, there is possibility that she may not return back to India in case she is allowed to leave India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. This Court vide order dated 29.5.2015 passed in CRM-M-17854-2015 Urvi Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana observed as under:- “In view of the observations made hereinabove and in order to avoid any apprehension, as put forward by learned State counsel, a direction is issued to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate to pass an appropriate order to return the passport of the petitioner and shall permit her to go abroad, for which, the petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20 lacs with an undertaking that she would report back on or before 1.9.2015. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate may further impose any other condition which it may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is made clear that after completion of her examinations, on her return from abroad, the petitioner shall return back her passport, as per the directions of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Similarly, in CRM-M-33160-2015 Urvi Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana, for the same relief, this Court while allowing the petition observed as under:- “Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is directed to release the passport of the petitioner forthwith subject to the conditions as laid down in order dated 29.5.2015 passed by this Court in CRM-M-17854 of 2015. Similarly, in CRM-M-33160-2015 Urvi Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana, for the same relief, this Court while allowing the petition observed as under:- “Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is directed to release the passport of the petitioner forthwith subject to the conditions as laid down in order dated 29.5.2015 passed by this Court in CRM-M-17854 of 2015. The learned Magistrate is further empowered to impose any other condition, which may be found reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall convince the learned Magistrate about the course, she intends to pursue along with documents. On completion of the aforesaid course, she shall return back to India and shall report back to the learned Magistrate on or before 20.12.2015 and will deposit her passport there.” A perusal of the above referred orders would reveal that the petitioner who was earlier a student has now become an entrepreneur and therefore, she is required to travel abroad very frequently. The tone and tenor of the earlier orders are very clear and there is hardly any ambiguity in the same. It seems that the learned Magistrate has not considered the same in true legal spirit and rather has passed the impugned order in a mechanical and casual manner. The rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for release of her passport on the ground that the matter is under investigation, hardly justifies the impugned order, more particularly when the petitioner has gone abroad and has returned back in the past also and duly surrendered her passport. Thus, she has fully established her bona fide. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner is a young entrepreneur and has not hampered or avoided the investigation in any manner, merely because an FIR is registered against her, her movement cannot be restricted, otherwise, the same would result in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the previous orders passed by this Court and the manner in which the impugned order has been passed cannot be approved. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak is set aside. Learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the previous orders passed by this Court and the manner in which the impugned order has been passed cannot be approved. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak is set aside. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order to return the passport of the petitioner and permit her to go abroad, for which, the petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20 lacs with an undertaking that she would report back to learned Magistrate on or before 01.07.2016. Learned Magistrate may further impose any other condition which he may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.