AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to renew her Passport no. M5178178.
I have heard Mr. T.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2; Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4.
As per the facts projected in this writ petition, the petitioner is the Director in M/s Dumick Educational Consultancy [OPC] Pvt. Ltd., which has its Registered Office at Guwahati, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Assam. The petitioner is stated to be involved in the field of providing career counseling and guidance to the students in different fields based on their interests and potential, and the company has, till date, served the needs of a large number of students by effectively addressing all their academic issues.
It is stated that one Dr. Jadunath Buragohain approached the petitioner’s company for consultancy services for getting admission of his daughter in a Medical College at Pune against the paid-up/sponsored quota. However, due to low rank in the NEET Examination, the daughter of Dr. Jadunath Buragohain could not get admission in the Medical College. Alleging dissatisfactory service on the part of the petitioner/petitioner’s company, the wife of Dr. Jadunath Buragohain lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Bhangagarh Police Station on 18.11.2022. The FIR was registered as Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022 for the offences under Section 420 and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. After registration of the FIR, the case was investigated into and after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer [IO] had submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 235 on 27.12.2023 finding a prima facie case to proceed for trial.
The cause of action for the petitioner to prefer the instant writ petition is non-processing of an application the petitioner had submitted before the Regional Passport Office, Guwahati seeking renewal of her Passport bearing no. M5178178. The Passport was previously issued to the petitioner on 14.01.2015 with a validity period of ten years upto 31.01.2025. After expiry of validity of the Passport, the petitioner applied for renewal on 11.06.2025 and the application had been registered as Application no. GU1075179366525.
It is stated that the Passport Authority, that is, the respondent no. 2 on receipt of the application for renewal fixed the date of appointment on 17.10.2025. However, prior to the scheduled date of appointment, the petitioner was informed by the Office of the respondent no. 2 on 08.09.2025 that her application for renewal of the Passport had been placed under objection due to adverse reports submitted by Police. The petitioner came to know, on enquiry, that the Police had submitted an adverse report in connection with the FIR registered as Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022 and submission of Charge-Sheet no. 235 on 27.12.2023 after completion of investigation.
On receipt of the Objection Letter, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M], Guwahati by filing an application to allow the petitioner to travel abroad and for a direction to the Passport Authorities to renew the Passport. The application stood forwarded to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup [Metro] [‘the JMFC’, for short] for disposal. The said application was registered as Petition no. 164/2026 and thereafter, put up before the JMFC on 26.02.2026.
The application, Petition no. 164/2026 came up for consideration before the JMFC on 26.02.2026. However, on 26.02.2026, none was present on behalf of the petitioner to make submissions. The JMFC after perusal of the petition, proceeded to observe that the Court being a Magistrate Court had no ancillary and incidental power to direct the concerned authorities to renew the Passport of the petitioner. Recording such observation, the JMFC finding no merit in the Petition, rejected the same by an Order dated 26.02.2026.
It is in the above backdrop, the relief sought for by the writ petitioner in this writ petition in the form of the direction to the respondent authorities to pass necessary orders to renew her Passport and to allow the petitioner to travel abroad in connection with her service are to be examined.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, it is averred that on 11.06.2025, the petitioner applied for renewal of her old Passport no. M5178178 vide File no. GU1075179366525 at the Office of the respondent no. 2. It is stated that generally, an application is granted on pre-police verification basis, but, due to an adverse Police Verification Report [PVR] on a previous Application no. GU1078393735415 and submission of an adverse PVR by the Police authority on 06.09.2025 with the remark, ‘during enquiry it is learnt that one criminal case has been registered against her at Bhangagarh P.S. vide Bhangagarh P.S. Case no. 342 year 2022 Charge-Sheet no. 235 dated 27th December, 2023’, an Objection Letter under Reference no. OBJ/1050358879/25 was sent to the petitioner on 08.09.2025. The petitioner did not respond to the Objection Letter. It is averred that in the application for renewal, the petitioner did not disclose as regards pendency of any court proceeding against her whereas for issuance or renewal of a Passport to an applicant having criminal proceeding pending before a criminal court in India, the procedure prescribed in the Notification no. GSR 570[E] dated 25.08.1993 and Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act, 1967 are required to be complied with. Such an applicant is required to produce orders from the concerned court granting permission to depart from India and to submit an undertaking in writing on a plain paper, in addition to the other documents required for issuance of Passport under the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules framed thereunder.
I have duly considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings.
The matters of issuance, renewal or re-issuance or passports are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 [‘the Passports Act’ or ‘the Act’, for short]. It is an Act to provide for issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.
Section 5 of the Passports Act has the nominal heading, ‘Applications for passports, travel documents, etc., and orders thereon’. As per sub-section [1] and sub-section [1A], an application for issue of a passport or a travel document under the Passports Act is to be made to the Passport Authority accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed. Sub-section [1B] of Section 5 has provided that every application under the Section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. As per Section 2[d] of the Act, ‘prescribed’ means prescribed by rules made under the Passports Act.
Sub-section [2] of Section 5 of the Passports Act has provided that on receipt of an application under Section 5, the Passport authority, after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of the Act, by order in writing, -
[a] issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or
[b] issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or
[c] refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement.
As per Section 5[3], where the Passport Authority makes an order under clause [b] or clause [c] of sub-section [2] of Section 5 on the application of any person, it shall have to record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the Passport Authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy.
Section 6 of the Passport Act with nominal heading, ‘Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.’, deals with refusal of passports and travel documents. For ready reference, Section 6 is quoted hereinbelow in its entirety :-
Section 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.-
[1] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause [b] or clause [c] of sub-section [2] of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--
[a] that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
[b] that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
[c] that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
[d] that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
[2] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause [c] of sub-section [2] of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely :-
[a] that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
[b] that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
[c] that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
[d] that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
[e] that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
[f] that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
[g] that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
[h] that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
[i] that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.
Section 7 of the Passports Act has prescribed for duration of passports and travel documents, and Section 8 has provided for extension of the period of passports. Section 9 of the Passports Act refers to the conditions and forms of passports and travel documents. By Section 10 of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority has been empowered to make variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. Section 11 of the Passports Act has provided for appeals and Section 12 has prescribed the offences and penalties. It has been contained in Section 17 of the Passports Act that a passport or travel document issued under the Act shall at all times remain the property of the Central Government.
Section 22 of the Passports Act has empowered the Central Government to grant exemptions. Section 22 reads as under :-
Section 22. Power to exempt.
Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification, -
[a] exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; and
[b] as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions.
Section 22 of the Passports Act has conferred on the Central Government the power, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest, to exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of specified provisions of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, quoted above, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India had issued a Notification no. GSR 570 [E] on 25.08.1993. The relevant excerpts from the Notification no. GSR 570 [E] which was published in the Official Gazette, are reproduced below for reference :-
GSR 570[E] - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause [a] of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 [15 of 1967] and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298 [E] dated the 14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause [f] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely :-
[a] the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued -
[i] for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
[ii] if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
[iii] if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year;
[iv] if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.
[b] any passport issued in terms of [a][ii] and [a][iii] above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;
[c] any passport issued in terms of [a][i] above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
[d] the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.
By a subsequent Circular no. V.I/401/1/3/2014 dated 21.08.2014, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India had reiterated that the issuance of passports to citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by them were pending before a criminal court in India was to be administered by the procedure contained in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. By the Circular, a standard format of undertaking was prescribed with a direction that whenever any applicant against whom proceedings before a criminal court were pending would approach any Passport Issuing Authority for passport services, a copy of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] and a copy of the proforma undertaking were to be given to the applicant with a covering letter directing the applicant to fulfil the requirements prescribed in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. Only on submission of the same, the passport application would be processed and the passport would be issued as per the provisions of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the contents of the court order, subject to submission of other documents and requirements as applicable to other passport applicants.
In continuation of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India had issued an Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019 on the subject :- ‘Issue of passports to applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before a court of law in India’. By this Office Memorandum, all Passport Authorities have been directed to apply the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] strictly in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, to insist on an undertaking in terms of the notification, and to treat a ‘no objection certificate’ or permission granted by a criminal court as prevailing over an adverse police report, while keeping in view that in cases covered by Section 6[2][f] the passport is ordinarily to be issued for a shorter period, consistent with the scheme of the Passports Act and the Passport Rules.
The provisions of the Passports Act, the Passport Rules, the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019 came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and another, [2025] 12 SCR 1307. The following excerpts from the said decision, which are of relevance for the case in hand, are quoted hereinbelow :-
10.On a plain reading, GSR 570[E] does two things. First, it recognises that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to obtain a passport, notwithstanding Section 6[2][f], where the concerned criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as and when required. Secondly, it structures the exercise of that exemption by tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms of the court's order. Thus, where the court specifies a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority must honour that period. Where the court does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases. What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6[2][f], or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to ‘depart from India’ for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.
11.The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new regime. It reiterates that GSR 570[E] must be ‘strictly applied’, explains the procedure where criminal cases are pending and makes it clear that a ‘no objection certificate’ or permission from the criminal court, read with the applicant's undertaking, may override an adverse police report with reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It also contemplates situations where more than one court is dealing with the matter and indicates that the orders of all such courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an administrative restatement of the position under Section 6[2][f], Section 22 and GSR 570[E], and cannot add to or cut down the exemption which the notification itself grants.
12.[…] we are prepared to treat re-issue of an expired ordinary passport as referable to Section 5 and subject to Section 6[2][f]. […] In our view, once the criminal courts, with full knowledge of the pending proceedings, consciously allowed renewal subject to the condition that the appellant shall not travel abroad without their permission and, […] required redeposit of the renewed passport, the underlying concern of Section 6[2][f] stood adequately addressed under judicial supervision.
* * * * * * * * * *
[…] First, Section 6[2][f] is a ground for refusal at the stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made subject to ‘the other provisions’ of the Act, which include Section 22 and the exemption carved out through GSR 570[E]. Second, GSR 570[E] does not compel the criminal court to authorise a particular journey. It proceeds on the broader premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to depart from India and the period of validity can be anchored either in the court's order or in the default periods mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6[2] [f] stands lifted to that extent. […]
[…] The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570[E] applies and the bar under Section 6[2][f] cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.
* * * * * * * * * *
[…] Section 6[2][f] speaks of ‘proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed’ and is directed at the pre-conviction stage. Once there is a conviction, the situation falls, if at all, within Section 6[2][e], which uses a different threshold and language. […]
It must also be noted that denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgments that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.
* * * * * * * * * *
It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. […] To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts' assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.
What emerges from the above discussion is that an applicant applying for issuance of a passport or renewal of a passport, can be refused on the grounds outlined in clause [a] to clause [i] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the Passports Act and on no other ground. Clause [f] of Section 6[2] is in relation to proceedings in respect of an offence. Section 6[2][f] has stated that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document to an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Section 6[2] is made subject to the other provisions of the Passports Act and amongst such provisions, Section 22, quoted above, which has provided the power to exempt to the Central Government, is also included. By the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, the Central Government by exercising the power to exempt under Section 22 has provided that a person facing criminal proceedings is not debarred for applying for issuance of a passport or renewal of a passport earlier issued to him. In other words, an applicant facing criminal proceedings is not to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport or renewal of passport. Therefore, an applicant against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him is pending before a criminal court, has to produce an order from the concerned criminal court permitting him to depart from India. In such a case, a passport can be issued or renewed, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. If in the order, the concerned criminal court specifies a period then the passport is to be issued or renewed for such period.
Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, after the petitioner submitted the application for renewal of the passport on 11.06.2025, the Passport Authority received an adverse Police Verification Report [PVR] reporting about registration of the criminal case, Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2026 and submission of Charge-Sheet no. 235 on 27.12.2023. According to the Passport Authority, the petitioner did not mention about pendency of any criminal proceedings against her in the application submitted for renewal of passport. On receipt of the adverse PVR, an Objection Letter stood issued to the petitioner by the Passport Authority on 08.09.2025. According to the Passport Authority, the petitioner did not respond to the Objection Letter dated 08.09.2025. The petitioner is found to have maintained silence on the above two aspects.
By the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019, it has been explained that when criminal cases are pending, then a No Objection Certificate or an order granting permission from the criminal court, coupled with the applicant’s undertaking, would override an adverse Police Report with reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It is further mentioned that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act, and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
It is an admitted position that pursuant to registration of a criminal case, Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022 under Section 420 and Section 406 of the IPC against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer, after completing investigation into it, had laid a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 235 on 27.12.2023 finding a prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offences. The copy of the Charge-Sheet no. 235 has not been brought on record by any of the parties.
It is an assertion of the petitioner that though after registration of the FIR as Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022, the investigation resulted in a charge-sheet, Charge-Sheet no. 235 on 27.12.2023, the said Charge-Sheet has not been placed before any criminal court of competent jurisdiction till date and, therefore, no court has taken cognizance of any offence against the petitioner. In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that as per the records, the Charge-Sheet, submitted by the Investigating Officer, has not been placed before the Court till date and as such, the position obtaining as on date is that no cognizance has been taken of the offence by any court on Charge-Sheet no. 235 and consequently, no process has been issued to the petitioner for her appearance to answer any charge. In the Police Verification Report [PVR], which is dubbed as an adverse report, only registration of Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022 and submission of Charge-Sheet no. 235 have been reported and no mention is made about any pending criminal proceedings.
Criminal proceedings can be said to be pending when cognizance is taken by a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. If it is mentioned that criminal proceedings is pending, it ordinarily means that the criminal proceedings is pending at any stage between the stage of taking cognizance of the offence by a criminal court of competent jurisdiction and the conclusion of the trial. It has also been clarified in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 to the effect that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6[2][f] and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
The Order passed by the JMFC on 26.02.2026 on Petition no. 164/2026 was passed at a stage, anterior to placement of the Charge-Sheet no. 235 before jurisdictional court competent to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the Charge-Sheet. It is only when criminal proceedings is pending before a criminal court of competent jurisdiction, such court is required to pass an order either permitting an accused facing the criminal proceeding to depart from India, exempting him from the operation of the provisions of Clause [f] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the Passports Act, subject to imposition of such other conditions, or otherwise, which jurisdiction is vested on it in view of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, a statutory notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause [a] of Section 22 of the Passports Act. If no criminal proceedings is pending before a court, then the court would not derive the jurisdiction to grant or deny such permission. With no criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before a criminal court of competent jurisdiction on 26.02.2026, it cannot be said that the Order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the JMFC is an order passed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested on it by Section 22[a] of the Passports Act read with Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E]. Though the Order dated 26.02.2026 is a judicial order which cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the said Order is not one of intervening nature to disable exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand.
In view of the discussion made and for the reasons assigned above, this Court has reached a view that there is no legal impediment under Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act for the Passport Issuing Authority to process the Application no. GU1075179366525 submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of her Passport no. M5178178 the validity of which had expired on 31.01.2025, if the fact situation canvassed in this writ petition, as considered above, regarding no pendency of criminal proceedings as obtaining this date, are correct.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
[i] the petitioner shall submit her reply to the Objection Letter dated 08.09.2025 issued to her by the respondent no. 2 within a period of fifteen days from today, stating therein the present status / position obtaining in relation to Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 342/2022 and the charge-sheet laid therein vide Charge-Sheet no. 342 dated 27.12.2023, more particularly, whether any cognizance has been taken or not by any criminal court of competent jurisdiction on the date of submission of the reply;
[ii] on receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the Passport Issuing Authority shall ascertain itself whether the condition laid down in Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act is in existence or not, within a period of fifteen days therefrom, and
[iii] if the condition under Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act by making verification from its own end, if it finds expedient and necessary; is found to be not in existence, it shall proceed to process the application for renewal of the Passport of the petitioner strictly in terms of the provisions of the Passports Act and all other extant rules and regulations, so as to bring the entire process to a finality as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month, keeping in view that the right to hold a passport is a facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.