Want a civil case

Rajiv Tayal v. Union of India & Ors. (124 (2005) DLT 502: 2005 (85) DRJ 146) 

Facts
•    This case states that the wife also has an available remedy under Section 10 of the Passport Act for impounding and/or revocation of the passport of her NRI husband if he failed to respond to the summons by the Indian courts.
•    In this case the NRI husband had filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by Consulate General of India, New York, USA, on the directions of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, for impounding his passport. He also challenged the order of the Trial Court declaring him a 'proclaimed offender' The NRI husband had filed the Petition even as he continued to refuse to join the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate largely on the ground that he was residing in USA and subjecting him to the criminal process in India would be an unfair burden.
•     The petitioner also submitted in the same breath that he had not been served with the summons and that the investigation in his case ought to be conducted by sending him a questionnaire and he should not be asked to join the investigation in India.
Decision of court
The court held that acceptance of such a plea would give a premium to the accused husband just because he happened to be abroad. Merely by going abroad a person could not claim a status superior to that of a citizen of India. It would then be open to such an accused to misuse the process of law and to make a mockery of the Indian judicial system by asking for such a special procedure which is in any case totally opposed to the principles of the criminal jurisprudence. The court passed his judgment after also looking at the conduct of the accused husband since he had refused to join the proceedings even after being repeatedly assured by the court that he would be extended suitable protection against his arrest or any other penal consequences in respect of his passport, but he declined to do so and insisted that the summons must be served on him before he is required to answer it, thus taking a hyper technical plea.
The court therefore held that there was no merit in the husband's plea as to the invalidity of Section 10(e) & (h) of the Passport Act being violation Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the plea of constitutional validity of such provisions thus stood rejected.