The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition filed by a woman accused under Section 420 IPC, permitting her to retrieve her passport and travel to Canada. The petitioner sought permission to complete her studies and to prevent the revocation of her daughter’s Canadian citizenship, which required her to reside in Canada for at least 180 days.
Background
The petitioner was studying in Canada and gave birth to her daughter there. After her husband’s tragic death in a car accident, she returned to India to live with her in-laws, where she faced abuse. She lodged an FIR against them, following which her deceased husband’s relatives filed a counter FIR under Section 420 IPC against her. Consequently, her passport was canceled, preventing her return to Canada to complete her studies.
The Judicial Magistrate earlier rejected her application seeking permission to travel abroad. This led her to approach the High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
She was not convicted, and the investigation was ongoing.
She owned immovable property in India, reducing the likelihood of absconding.
Failure to return to Canada would affect her studies and risk her daughter’s Canadian citizenship.
Public Prosecutor’s Contentions
The petitioner’s travel could hinder the investigation.
Apprehending her later, if required, would be challenging.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Farjand Ali noted the following:
The petitioner was not convicted, and the investigation was incomplete.
Denying her permission would adversely impact her educational and future prospects.
Her inability to return to Canada could lead to the revocation of her daughter’s citizenship, adding to the hardship.
The Court balanced the prosecution’s apprehensions by imposing conditions:
Both of the petitioner’s parents were required to furnish undertakings guaranteeing her return to India within six months.
In case of non-compliance, her parents would forfeit ₹5 lakh each.
The Court directed the release of her passport and allowed her to travel, emphasizing her right to education and her child’s welfare.
Significance
This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring a balance between individual rights and the interests of justice, particularly in matters involving education, family welfare, and international residency obligations.
Lawcutor 