Mere Pendency Of FIR Not A Ground To Deny Passport Renewal | Andhra Pradesh High Court Says No Cognizance Taken Means No Pending Proceedings Under Section 6 Of Passports Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that mere pendency of a crime does not constitute a valid ground for refusing the renewal or reissuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the petitioner’s passport in accordance with the application dated 08.04.2025, without reference to Crime No. 40 of 2016. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, and the court issued no cost order.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the second respondent (Passport Authority) to renew or reissue his passport based on an application submitted on 08.04.2025, due to the pendency of Crime No. 40/2016 dated 12.04.2016. This case was registered under Sections 407 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code at N.G. Police Station, Prakasam District.
The petitioner had originally been issued passport number Z3223492 valid from 22.05.2015 to 21.05.2025. As the expiration approached, he submitted an application for renewal/reissuance on 08.04.2025. Following this application, the Passport Authority issued a shortfall notice dated 26.04.2025 citing an adverse police verification report. The petitioner responded with an explanation on 30.04.2025, which was duly submitted. However, the authority declined to act upon the renewal request due to the said adverse report referencing the pending criminal case.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the pendency of a criminal case, in which no cognizance has been taken by the competent court, does not amount to "proceedings pending before a criminal court" under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. It was contended that the refusal of passport renewal solely on the ground of such pendency was legally untenable.
In support of this argument, reference was made to the status of the criminal case. Although a final report was submitted to the jurisdictional Judicial First-Class Magistrate-cum-Excise Court, Ongole, it had initially been returned and was resubmitted on 16.04.2024. Notably, the court had not taken cognizance of the matter as of the date of the hearing.
The petitioner pointed out the legal position laid down by various judicial pronouncements, particularly regarding the distinction between filing of a final report and the act of the court taking cognizance. This distinction is critical in determining the application of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
The matter brought to focus the question of whether the pendency of a crime, in the absence of cognizance by a criminal court, justifies denial of passport services under statutory provisions. The court’s attention was drawn to Section 6(2)(f), which reads: “That proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.”
The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Deputy Solicitor General, submitted that although a final report was filed and resubmitted, the court had not taken cognizance and the matter remained at a preliminary stage.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti recorded that: “The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone.”
The Court cited the two-judge Bench decision in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others where it was observed: “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.”
Further reference was made to Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, where it was recorded: “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court also relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.383 of 2024, wherein it was observed: “The Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
It was further recorded: “Proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of ‘proceedings pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.”
Accordingly, the Court found that: “In the case at hand, the jurisdictional court has not taken any cognizance. Mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/reissuing the passport.”
Based on the factual matrix and legal principles, the Court directed that the writ petition be disposed of at the admission stage, instructing the second respondent to renew or re-issue the petitioner’s passport in accordance with the application bearing reference number VJ9077541666125 dated 08.04.2025, without taking into account Crime No. 40 of 2016 dated 12.04.2016.
The order concluded with a declaration that there would be no order as to costs and that any pending miscellaneous petitions, if existing, would stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri P. Aditya Harsha Vardhan, Pillix Law Firm
For the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General; Sri Ajay, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Ravi Ramesh v. The Union Government of India and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010254412025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13133 of 2025
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
[Read/Download order]
