Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that permission from a criminal court is not necessary for passport renewal if no cognizance has been taken and no criminal proceedings are pending under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. While declining to interfere with the lower court’s permission to renew the passport, the High Court quashed conditions imposed on the petitioner, deeming them excessive and legally unsustainable. The Court partly allowed the petition and clarified the petitioner's right to seek renewal as per law, treating the case as one not involving any pending criminal proceedings before a court.

The petitioner, aged 60, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order issued by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery, dated 15.02.2025 in CMP No. 34 of 2025 in VC No. 07 of 2024. He also sought directions for the renewal of his passport, originally issued on 29.12.2014, without requiring a no-objection certificate from the vigilance court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Under Section 387 IPC | Says Fear Of Death To Extort Money Is Punishable Even Without Actual Delivery

An FIR bearing No. 07/2024/SCK was registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The FIR was dated 14.08.2024 and pertained to a vigilance enquiry. As of the date of filing, the investigation remained incomplete, and no final report had been filed before the court.

Despite the absence of cognizance or trial proceedings, the petitioner, under a misapprehension of legal requirements, applied for permission from the vigilance court to renew his passport. The vigilance court permitted the renewal through Ext.P2 order but imposed multiple conditions, including:

1. Surrender of the renewed passport to the court within 15 days of receipt.
2. A prohibition on leaving India without prior permission from the court.
3. A security deposit of ₹20,000 to ensure compliance.
4. Submission of an affidavit agreeing to the above terms, with forfeiture provisions upon default.

Challenging these terms, the petitioner contended that no criminal proceedings were pending within the meaning of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, and therefore, the court’s permission was not legally required. In support of his claim, he relied on the Kerala High Court’s decision in Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Office and Another, 2021 (5) KHC 625, which clarified that mere registration of an FIR does not constitute a criminal proceeding unless cognizance is taken by a competent court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the vigilance court’s order, though favorable in part, imposed excessive and unnecessary conditions contrary to established legal standards. The learned Public Prosecutor representing the State did not dispute the legal position regarding the definition of “criminal proceedings” under the Passport Act. It was also confirmed that the investigation had not yet resulted in the filing of a final report.

The petitioner submitted that the existing order effectively restricted his right to renew and use his passport in the absence of a judicially recognized proceeding. The legal framework under the Passport Act, 1967—particularly Section 6—was examined in light of this contention.

Justice A. Badharudeen referred to statutory provisions and prior High Court decisions in support of the conclusions drawn in the case. It was noted that under Section 6(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, which governs the authority's power to refuse passports or travel documents, the refusal may be based on the grounds listed in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5, read with Section 6(2)(a)(2)(i). Section 6(2)(f) specifically provides that the pendency of proceedings concerning an alleged offence before a criminal court in India constitutes a valid reason to deny issuance of a passport or travel document.

The Court referred to paragraph 17 of the judgment in Thadevoose Sebastian’s case, which examined the meaning of “criminal proceedings pending.” In Muhammed v. Union of India and Others, it was held that a criminal proceeding is considered pending only once cognizance has been taken by the court, and that in the absence of a final report, a criminal case cannot be deemed as pending.

In Jayan V. M. @ Jayasoorya v. Union of India and Others, it was observed that the passport authority must use discretion in assessing the seriousness of an offence and determine whether it warrants variation, impounding, or revocation of the passport.

The Court further noted that in paragraph 22 of Thadevoose Sebastian’s case, it was clarified that if no final report has been filed and no court has taken cognizance, then no criminal proceedings are pending. In such circumstances, the passport authority may proceed with issuance or renewal without requiring court permission.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court found that although an FIR had been registered, the investigation remained incomplete. Therefore, in view of the ratio in Thadevoose Sebastian and the related decisions, it could not be concluded that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner within the scope of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner did not require court permission for passport renewal.

In its final order dated 10.06.2025, the Court allowed the original petition (Criminal) in part, quashing Condition Nos. 2 to 5 imposed in Ext.P2 order.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Acquits Father In Child Abuse Case | Finds Wife Tutored Daughter And Built Case To Block Husband’s Exit From India

The petitioner was granted liberty to apply for renewal of his passport as per law, with the case being treated as one in which no criminal proceedings were presently pending against him before any court in India.

The Court clarified that if the Investigating Officer required the petitioner’s presence as part of the investigation, a notice could be issued or the special court could be approached in accordance with law to secure his presence.

The directive permitting passport renewal remained intact, while the associated restrictive conditions were set aside.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, Sri. G.P. Shinod, Sri. Govind Padmanaabhan, Shri. Atul Mathews, Smt. Gayathri S.B., Advocates

For the Respondents: Adv. O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Adv. Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor, VACB; Sr. PP Rekha S. for VACB

Case Title: Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:40962

Case Number: OP(Crl.) No. 324 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen

[Read/Download order]