AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Non-consideration of the petitioner’s passport application dated 04.11.2025 in view of pendency of Crime No.294 of 2022 of Tanuku Town Police is his grievance.
Heard Sri Pathi Siva Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Govinda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt P.Padmavathi, learned Central Government Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit, contended that the petitioner submitted an online application dated 04.11.2025 for issuance of fresh passport. However, the respondent authorities have withheld the issuance of the passport on the ground that Crime No.294 of 2022 of Tanuku Town Police Station is pending. He further submitted that, upon enquiry, it was found that, as on date, no charge sheet/final report has been filed or accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of the said crime. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to obtain passport merely on account of the pendency of a criminal case. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Home Department, on instructions, fairly submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner; however, the same has not been numbered by the jurisdictional Magistrate so far.
Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, which outlines the legal grounds upon which the passport authority must or may refuse to issue a passport, travel document, or make an endorsement for visiting foreign countries, envisages that:
Section 6(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 that proceedings a in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
(g)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 6(2) (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned court.
Further, in Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India.
In view of the observations held above, the passport authorities cannot withhold passport on the mere ground of registration of crime. In the instant case, the submissions made by both the learned counsel would indicate that charge sheet was filed, but the same was not taken cognizance by the concerned Court.
In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner filed for issuance of his passport, if it meets all the necessary requirements, other than the objection regarding pendency of crime.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.