Darapu Baburao, S/O Late Gurayya vs Union Of India & Ors

Subba Reddy Satti, J

Heard Sri Sapthagiri Metta, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Central Government, for respondent No.1; learned standing counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.3.

The petitioner made an application vide File No.VS1076173269926, dated 02.01.2026, before respondent No.2 for the reissuance of a passport. A short fall notice dated 13.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner seeking clarification due to an adverse police verification report, pointing out the petitioner"s involvement in C.C.No.386 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa, arising out of crime No.561 of 2024 of Kasibugga Police Station.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted a passport on 03.11.2016 for ten years, and the same will be operating till 02.11.2026. The petitioner is a professional Seaman engaged in maritime employment, and hence, he applied for the reissuance /renewal of his passport. Respondent No.2, without processing the application issued Ex.P2, proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case does not impede the reissuance of a passport.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, would submit that the Police filed a final report/charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.386 of 2025. The petitioner has to make an appropriate application before the concerned jurisdictional Court, since the jurisdictional Court has taken cognisance of the crime and the criminal case is pending.

A Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the scope of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (for short „the Act"), the judicial proceedings pending against an individual, and taking cognisance by the Magistrate observed as under:

"9On a reading of the aforementioned provisions, it becomes clear that the passport authority does possess the power to refuse issuance of a passport or a travel document for visiting any foreign country, on the ground that "proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India", yet, in terms of the notification dated 25.08.1993, bearing No.G.S.R.570(E), issued in terms of the powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act, an applicant can approach the Court in which the applicant is facing trial for appropriate orders.

In this case at hand, as noted supra, the jurisdictional Criminal Court has taken cognisance, and the criminal case is pending before the said Court. The petitioner must approach the jurisdictional court and make an appropriate application.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, where C.C.No.386 of 2025 is pending and make an application. If such an application is made, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders regarding renewal/issuing of a passport to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, strictly as per the provisions of the Act and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.