Mere Filing Of FIR, Ongoing Probe Against Applicant Without Court's Cognizance Not Valid Grounds To Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that merely filing of an FIR or cases under investigation against a person is not a valid ground for refusal of passport renewal when no cognizance has been taken by a court.A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla noted that merely filing an FIR or having cases under investigation does not constitute “pending” criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.“When we look at the Office Memorandum dated 10th October 2019, it clearly stipulates that merely filing of a FIR and cases under investigation do not come within the purview of the Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967. For a criminal proceeding to be considered as “pending”, it is only when a case is registered before any Court of law and the Court has taken cognizance of the same. This Office Memorandum is certainly binding on the Passport Authorities”, the court observed.Section 6(2)(f) provides that the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport if proceedings in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.The court directed the Passport Authorities to process the passport renewal application of one Kartik Vaman Bhatt, ignoring the adverse police report that initially prevented the renewal of his passport application.Bhatt filed a writ petition seeking an order for the renewal of his passport for the full period of 10 years. His application had been pending due to an adverse police report citing two primary reasons:A criminal proceeding pending against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Court, Andheri, Mumbai.An application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Esplanade Court, Mumbai.The court noted that proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are civil in nature, as previously determined in the case of Kokila Kartik Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors. Consequently, this objection was not valid grounds for withholding the passport renewal, the court stated.The criminal proceedings against Bhatt are a private complaint alleging offences punishable under sections 147, 182, 288, 325, 336, 352, 406, 420, 469, 452, 407, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the IPC. However, the court found that the complaint was sent for police inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, with no further orders issued. Further, the inquiry order was stayed by a Single Judge of the High Court on April 21, 2015.Additionally, the court noted that the complainant had undertaken to withdraw the criminal complaint, as recorded in a Division Bench order on April 8, 2024. Despite this, the complaint was not withdrawn, unfairly affecting Bhatt.The court held that since no court had taken cognizance of the case against Bhatt, the adverse police report was not valid grounds for refusing passport renewal.Therefore, the court directed the Passport Authorities to process Bhatt's application and issue his passport within three weeks, provided his application met all other requirements. The court also scheduled a compliance hearing for July 18, 2024.Case no. – Writ Petition (L) No. 14496 of 2024Case Title – Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Filing Of FIR, Ongoing Probe Against Applicant Without Court's Cognizance Not Valid Grounds To Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags