ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metro-I (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.184/2024 whereby learned trial Court has refused to extend the foreign stay of the petitioner upto 15.02.2025 and furthermore, has directed to issue letter to cancel the passport of the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is dealing in the business of manufacturing and selling of jewellery and for his business purpose, the petitioner frequently visits foreign countries to procure orders of jewellery. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that due to some professional and personal rivalry, some criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metro-I, another criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.171/2005 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court of Judicial Magistrate No.11') and one more criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No.199/2010 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court of Judicial Magistrate No.7'). 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in all the pending criminal cases, the petitioner has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail and all these criminal cases are at the stage of summoning of other co-accused and, therefore, no effective proceeding is being done in these criminal cases. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the main limb of the petitioner's business is in foreign countries and, therefore, the petitioner has to visit multiple trade fairs as well as foreign customers to procure jewellery orders from them. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that vide order dated 07.09.2024 in all these criminal cases, the petitioner was permitted by learned Courts to travel abroad till 15.10.2024. The said order was further extended to allow the petitioner to stay abroad till 16.12.2024. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that vide order dated 07.09.2024 in all these criminal cases, the petitioner was permitted by learned Courts to travel abroad till 15.10.2024. The said order was further extended to allow the petitioner to stay abroad till 16.12.2024. During his foreign stay, on 24.11.2024, the petitioner met with an accident and suffered from a knee injury. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the hospital on 27.11.2024 and again on 06.12.2024, he was given medicines and advised to rest for about eight weeks on 10.12.2024. Copy of the medical prescription and related documents have been annexed with the petition as Annexure-6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in such backdrop, the petitioner moved applications seeking permission to stay outside India till 15.02.2025 in all the criminal cases pending against him. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR Nos.171/2005 and 199/2010 registered at Police Stations Ashok Nagar and Manak Chowk respectively, learned Courts of Judicial Magistrate No.7 and 11 allowed the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to stay outside India till 15.02.2025. The impugned orders passed by the Courts of Judicial Magistrate No.7 and 11 are annexed with the petition as Annexures-7 and 8 respectively. However, in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.144/2005 registered at Police Station Moti Doongri, learned trial Court refused the permission to extend foreign stay till 15.02.2025 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Court within 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 13.12.2024 and further directed the Regional Office, Jaipur and Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India to cancel the passport of the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that as per the provisions of Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1967'), learned trial Court has no power to direct the Regional Office, Jaipur and Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the right to stay abroad and doing his business is a fundamental right of the petitioner, which cannot be curtailed except as the procedure established by the law. 6. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance of the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner has already appeared before the trial Court and therefore, the prayer to stay abroad till 15.02.2025 has become infructuous, however, learned senior counsel has prayed the order passed by learned trial Court to the extent of the direction to the Regional Office, Jaipur and Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India for cancellation of the passport of the petitioner be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the law laid down by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Shanavas Babu Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 31717. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported as 1978 (1) SCC 248 , has held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chand Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2019 (2) SCT 741. 11. It is settled position of law that the direction with regard to cancellation of the passport can only be issued under the provisions prescribed in the Act of 1967. 12. Admittedly, the overstay of the petitioner outside India was due to his unfortunate accident causing him knee injury, which was beyond his control and it cannot be said that the petitioner intentionally avoided his appearance before the trial Court and therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to allow the present petition filed by the petitioner. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned order 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Case No.184/2024 whereby direction was given to the Regional Office, Jaipur and Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India for cancellation of the passport of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 14. The stay application and all the pending applications, also stand disposed of.