Case at a Glance
A man named as an accused in a 2018 Vadodara FIR involving forgery and fertiliser-control offences, and now on bail, sought renewal of his passport. The Regional Passport Office treated the pending case as an obstacle. Justice Devan M. Desai noted the Ministry of External Affairs’ notification of 10 October 2019, under which mere FIRs and cases under investigation do not fall within Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, and that the passport authority could not show that any court had taken cognizance. The Court directed the passport to be renewed if there is no other impediment, but required the petitioner to obtain permission from the competent court before travelling abroad and to deposit the renewed passport with that court.
The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in FIR I-CR No. 30 of 2018, registered on 23 February 2018 at Harni Police Station, Vadodara city, for offences under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 3(2) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, and provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. He is on bail. When he sought renewal or reissue of his passport, the pending FIR stood in the way, and he approached the Gujarat High Court for a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad.
The Central Government Standing Counsel placed on record two documents. The first was notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, issued under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, which exempts citizens facing pending criminal proceedings from Section 6(2)(f) if they produce an order of the court concerned permitting departure from India, subject to conditions on validity and an undertaking to appear when required. The second was the MEA notification of 10 October 2019, which clarifies that FIRs and cases under investigation do not count as proceedings pending before a criminal court; a case counts only once a court has taken cognizance. Counsel submitted that the petitioner must, in any case, obtain the competent court’s permission before leaving India.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a passport authority refuse to renew the passport of a person who is only named in an FIR, when no criminal court is shown to have taken cognizance of the case?
Cognizance, Not an FIR, Triggers Section 6(2)(f)
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act allows refusal of a passport where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. The Court read this with the MEA notification of 10 October 2019, which states that “mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f)”. The pivotal fact, therefore, was whether a court had taken cognizance in the petitioner’s case.
On that point, the respondent had nothing to show. The Court recorded that “Even learned advocate Mr. Pradip Bhate could not point out anything” to indicate that cognizance had been taken. In those circumstances the 2019 notification did not stand in the petitioner’s way. At the same time, since criminal proceedings are pending against him, the Court balanced the renewal with a safeguard drawn from the scheme of GSR 570(E): the petitioner must approach the competent court for permission before travelling abroad and submit the renewed passport to that court.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under the MEA notification dated 10 October 2019, mere FIRs and cases under investigation do not fall within Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act; a case counts as pending before a criminal court only after cognizance.
- Since the passport authority could not show that cognizance had been taken, the pending FIR was not an impediment to renewal.
- The Regional Passport Officer was directed to renew the petitioner’s passport if there are no other impediments apart from the present FIR.
- The petition was allowed on condition that the petitioner obtains permission from the competent court before travelling abroad and submits the renewed passport to that court; no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Thousands of people named in FIRs find their passport applications stalled. This order applies the MEA’s own 2019 clarification that an FIR, without cognizance, is not a pending criminal proceeding.
- It separates two questions: holding a valid passport, and actually travelling abroad while a case is pending, which still needs court permission.
- It shows the practical importance of GSR 570(E) and the 2019 notification in passport disputes.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Applicants
- If your passport is held up only because of an FIR, check whether any court has taken cognizance; if not, the 2019 MEA notification helps you.
- Even after renewal, seek permission from the court where your case is pending before you travel abroad.
- Be ready to deposit the renewed passport with that court if directed.
For Counsel
- Place the MEA notification of 10 October 2019 and GSR 570(E) of 25 August 1993 on record.
- Ask the passport authority to show whether cognizance has been taken; the burden effectively fell on it here.
- Frame the prayer for renewal separately from any prayer for permission to travel.
Key Takeaways
- An FIR or investigation alone does not attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
- No cognizance shown, so the FIR was not a bar to renewal.
- Passport to be renewed if there is no other impediment.
- Travel abroad only with permission of the competent criminal court; renewed passport to be deposited there.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my passport be refused just because an FIR is registered against me?
According to the MEA notification of 10 October 2019 relied on by the Gujarat High Court, mere FIRs and cases under investigation do not fall under Section 6(2)(f). A case counts as pending only after a court has taken cognizance.
If the passport is renewed, can I travel abroad freely?
No. In this case the Court made renewal subject to the condition that the petitioner obtain permission from the competent court before travelling, and deposit the renewed passport with that court.
What is GSR 570(E)?
It is a 1993 notification under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act that exempts persons facing pending criminal proceedings from Section 6(2)(f) if they produce an order of the court permitting them to leave India, subject to conditions.
Conclusion
The order is short but useful. It holds the passport authority to the Government’s own position that an FIR, without cognizance, does not bar a passport, while keeping the criminal court in control of whether the accused can actually leave the country.
Practical takeaway: In passport-renewal disputes over a pending FIR, first establish whether cognizance has been taken; if not, rely on the 2019 MEA notification, and separately seek the criminal court’s permission for travel.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com