Patna High Court
Awadhesh Kumar SinghversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The stay of criminal proceedings was not limited to ten weeks, and the passport authority was directed to restore the petitioner’s passport within three weeks.
Summary
Awadhesh Kumar Singh, a qualified electrical engineer and seafarer, had his passport impounded after a warrant of arrest was issued in FIR No. 17 of 2024 filed by his daughter‑in‑law. He filed a criminal writ challenging the FIR, and a coordinate bench of the Patna High Court stayed the criminal proceedings. The passport authority, citing Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act, 1967, impounded the passport because the petitioner did not appear to the notice. The petitioner argued that the stay of the criminal case removed any basis for the impoundment, while the respondents contended that the petitioner should have appealed under Section 11 of the Passport Act and that the stay was only for ten weeks. The court held that the stay was not limited to a ten‑week period and ordered the passport authority to restore the passport within three weeks, thereby disposing of the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay of criminal proceedings automatically requires restoration of an impounded passport.
- Whether the petitioner was required to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Passport Act instead of a criminal writ.
- Whether the stay order issued by the court was limited to ten weeks.
- Whether the passport authority must restore the passport upon the court's direction.
Legislation cited
- Passport Act, 1967 — s. 10(3)(h), 11
Subjects
- passport impoundment
- criminal writ
- stay of proceedings
- Section 11 appeal
- Section 10(3)(h)
- seafarer
- FIR
- interpretation of stay order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1871 of 2025
======================================================
Awadhesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Ganga Prasad Singh, R/o - Flat No. C- 110,
National Park CHS, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Navi Mumbai, District-
Raigarh, Maharashtra- 410206.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
2. The Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, through the Senior Superintendent.
3. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Deaprtment of Home,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, Bihar.
5. Aditi Singh W/o Ravi Kumar Singh, D/o Amrendra Kumar Singh, R/o -
Hemanpur, P.S. - Mohuddin Nagar, District Samastipur, Bihar and Flat no. -
C 110, National Park, Plot no. - 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 410206 at Presently Residing Veena Kunj Opposite Zila School
PS Civil Line District Gaya Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aditya Rai Singh, Advocate
Ms. Ginni Priya, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For UOI : Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr., Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner is a qualified Electrical Engineer having
an experience of about 21 years as a seafarer on merchant ships.
3. There was a dispute between the petitioner’s son
and private respondent no. 5. In the FIR lodged by the daughter-
in-law of the petitioner bearing FIR No. 17 of 2024, a warrant of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1871 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
arrest was issued by the competent court. The passport officer
issued a notice dated 23.04.2024 seeking a clarification from the
petitioner stating therein that in view of the warrant of arrest
issued against him, why not impound the passport issued in
favour of the petitioner bearing passport no. Z4951404 dated
29.06.2018 under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act 1967?
The petitioner did not appear pursuant to the aforesaid notice
dated 23.04.2024, and accordingly, the passport officer passed
an order on 16.05.2024 whereby the passport in question issued
in favour of the petitioner was impounded.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with his family
members, filed a criminal writ application before this Court
challenging the entire prosecution, including the FIR in
Cr.W.J.C. No. 1011 of 2024, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide its order dated 19.06.2024, stayed the further
proceedings against the petitioner and all accused persons till
further order.
5. Accordingly, the submission is that now the
passport authority has no reason to keep the passport of the
petitioner impounded.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1871 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
respondent no. 5, i.e., the wife, vehemently argued that when the
notice was issued by the passport authority on 23.04.2024, the
petitioner chose not to appear before him, and accordingly, the
passport authority passed the order impounding the passport of
the petitioner on 16.05.2024. Therefore, the only remedy that
was available to the petitioner was to file an appeal under
Section 11 of the Passport Act, 1967. Instead of filing an appeal
before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed a criminal
writ for quashing of the FIR in which an order has been passed
staying the further criminal proceeding. Therefore, this writ
application may not be entertained, as the conduct of the
petitioner was not bona fide.
7. Learned counsel further submits that this Court,
while passing the order dated 19.06.2024 in Cr.WJC No. 1011
of 2024 and issuing notice to respondent no. 5, directed for the
listing of this case after ten weeks, and in the meanwhile, further
proceedings against all the accused were stayed in the criminal
case. Subsequently, the order dated 02.08.2024 was passed by
this Court in which the earlier order of stay was not extended,
and the matter was referred to mediation, which ultimately
failed. Since the order of stay was not extended in the
subsequent order, as such, there was no stay of the proceeding in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1871 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
the eyes of law.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent no. 5, due to matrimonial discord with the
son of the petitioner, is gunning the petitioner and entire family
members out of vengeance, and the respondent no. 5 intervened
in the matter in order to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood
inasmuch as the petitioner for the last two years has not gone on
his work due to impounding of the passport.
9. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of
India, argued that in view of the stay of the further proceeding
by this court in FIR No. 17 of 2024, the passport authority is
ready to restore the passport facility to the petitioner in
accordance with notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials on record.
11. It appears that after the passport of the petitioner
was impounded, a criminal writ application was filed
challenging the entire criminal prosecution, including the First
Information Report. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court issued
notice to the informant, i.e., respondent no. 5, stayed further
proceedings against all the accused persons. The contention of
respondent no. 5 is that the word "meanwhile" used in the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.1871 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
would mean that the stay was only granted for ten weeks when
the court directed the listing of the case after ten weeks. This
Court does not accept the submission of the respondent no. 5
that the stay was only granted for ten weeks for the reason that
the order for the listing of the case does not have a correlation
with the order for the stay of the further proceeding. While
staying the further proceeding, the court has not specifically said
that proceeding shall be stayed for a particular period. The
submission of the respondent no. 5 that it was for the period of
ten weeks only is fit to be rejected.
12. Accordingly, the passport officer respondent no. 2
is directed to take a final decision in terms of his stand as taken
in para no. 17 of the counter affidavit for restoration of the
passport of the petitioner within a period of three weeks.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ application stands disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U
Checking your session…