Mere Pendency Of FIR Not Bar For Renewing, Reissuing Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Vijaywada's Regional Passport Officer to renew/reissue the passport of a man, which was initially refused on the grounds that there was a FIR lodged against him for criminal breach of trust.While disposing of the man's plea, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that since the jurisdictional Court had not taken cognisance, in such a circumstance, “mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/reissuing the passport.”BackgroundThe writ petition was primarily filed to declare the action of Respondent 2–Regional Passport Officer, Vijaywada in not renewing/reissuing the passport in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner on account of the pendency of a 2016 FIR/criminal case lodged under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 407 (Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.) of IPC, as illegal and arbitrary.It was the case of the petitioner that that mere pendency of a crime is not a ground to not reissue passport. He had applied for renewal/reissuance of passport, which was initially issued for 10 years in 2015. However, a shortfall notice dated 26.04.2025 was issued to him due to an adverse police verification report. While the petitioner submitted an explanation on 30.04.2024, the Respondent 2 did not renew/reissue the passport.On the contrary, the respondents contended that the final report submitted before the jurisdictional Court by the police was returned and resubmitted on 16.04.2024. However, it was submitted that the Court had not taken cognisance yet.For reference, Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, enacts the procedure for refusal of passports and other travel documents. Under clause (f) of sub-section (2), the passport authority is authorised to refuse to issue a passport or any other travel document for visiting any foreign country if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.The Court made reference to Supreme Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where it was held 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 the law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. The Court also referred to another decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a 2024 plea where it held that since no cognizance was taken of the charge sheet filed before it by the jurisdictional Court, 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 held that mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/reissuing the passport. The court thus directed the regional passport officer to renew/reissue the petitioner's passport without reference to the crime.The petition was disposed of.Case Title: Ravi Ramesh v. The Union Government Of India and OthersClick Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Pendency Of FIR Not Bar For Renewing, Reissuing Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

Saahas Arora

Tags