Madras High Court Quashes Order Impounding Leena Manimekalai's Passport Over Pendency Of Criminal Defamation Case; Orders Release Within One Week

In a writ petition challenging the impounding of Leena Manimekalai's passport, Madras High Court has allowed the petitioner's plea while setting aside the impounding order of Regional Passport Officer, Chennai on the grounds of pendency of criminal defamation proceedings against her. Justice M. Dhandapani has directed the Regional Passport Office to release the impounded passport within a period of one week from the receipt of the court's order. On the last occasion, while reserving the orders, he had orally iterated that he is inclined to issue a direction to release the passport of the petitioner. "This is a complete misuse of the criminal justice delivery system. Taking such heinous actions against the petitioner, it's not right.", said Justice M. Dhandapani then. Before that as well, Justice M. Dhandapani had commented that impounding the petitioner's passport on the basis of a criminal defamation case pending against her by the alleged harasser was not legally permissible. When the case came up before him on the last date, he enquired if there has been a consensus as to the Magistrate where the case can be transferred for expeditious disposal. He also asked the RPO and counsel for Susi Ganeshan as to who empowered RPO to impound the passport for defamation. "Even though the Saidapet Magistrate closed my petition for impounding passport after taking an affidavit from the petitioner to ensure her cooperation, I approached this Honourable Court for appropriate directions. No infirmity was found and the trial court was allowed to proceed accordingly. Later, when the petitioner was deploying evasive tactics to delay the trial, the trial court allowed to re open the petition and passed a detailed order under Section 104 CrPC to impound the passport", submitted the counsel for Susi Ganeshan to explain the timeline of proceedings. Regarding Susi Ganeshan's apprehension that the trial will be delayed in the criminal defamation case, Justice M. Dhandapani assured: "I will fix an outer time limit for completion of trial". On the other hand, CGSC tried to imply that the passport was impounded upon the report received from the Commissioner and not on the basis of Magistrate Order under Section 104 CrPC. "We sent show-cause notices twice to the petitioner. We didn't receive any reply and hence, we didn't take any decision. On 3rd September, they appeared in person. However, their explanation to the show cause notice was not satisfactory. Since it was a criminal offence, we impounded the passport by invoking the powers under Section 10(3) (e) of Passport Act, which we are entitled to do." The petitioner counsel submitted that if steps are taken to impound a passport in every defamation case, then no one will be able to leave the country soon. He also submitted that the actions of RPO was contrary to the apex court judgments in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India , and Maneka Gandhi's cases, submitted the counsel. "We are going to Canada for no purpose other than studying. Why is the RPO so interested to impound the passport? In how many defamation cases have they impounded the passports? People who are murderers, people who have cheated banks and embezzled money are leaving the country", he asked. CGSC Infant Dinesh replied that upon perusal of the records within their purview, they came to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting contrary to the High Court directions to co-operate with the defamation trial and aid in its expeditious disposal. The explanation rendered as a reply to the show-cause notices was also not satisfactory, argued CGSC. Replying to the petitioner's alleged non-cooperation with the proceedings in the trial, the counsel submitted as follows: "If High Court Directions were not followed, Trial Court is aware of the appropriate course of action. From when did Regional Passport Office take up case management?" Justice M.Dhandapani enquired to the CGSC if he was justifying the impounding order. CGSC Infant Dinesh replied that he only relied on the recommendations made by the honourable high court while considering Leena Manimekalai's case. Reacting to the submissions made by the counsel for Susi Ganeshan, the court orally noted: "I can't adjudicate or give a verdict on your criminal defamation case. Criminal OP was in regards to impounding the passport. I will ensure your right to fair trial in defamation. Sir, this is a Section 482 CrPC Petition. I can only pass orders within the framework of S.482 CrPC, and not Section 397. Order Reserved." While reserving the order, the judge had told the CGSC that his arguments couldn't be accepted, "Mr Dinesh, there is a limit for everything. You acted upon the adverse police report. Don't make hue and cry as if the petitioner has committed a huge crime."Background On September 9, citing the...

Madras High Court Quashes Order Impounding Leena Manimekalai's Passport Over Pendency Of Criminal Defamation Case; Orders Release Within One Week

Sebin James

Tags