Mattaparthi Chandra Sekhar, S/O.Subrahmanyam vs Union Government Of India & Ors

Subba Reddy Satti, J

Heard Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1; learned standing counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondents 3 to 5.

The petitioner made an application vide File No.VS9076766132026 dated 27.04.2026 before respondent No.2 for the reissuance/renewal of a passport. Respondent No.2, having received the application, did not process the same due to the petitioner"s involvement in crime No.138 of 2022 of the Town Police Station, Amalapuram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case does not impede the reissuance of a passport.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the Police have not filed any final report before the jurisdictional Court.

Thus, as seen from the pleadings and instructions, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognisance.

The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the issue involved in W.A.No.383 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024, considered the aspect of cognisance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows:

"16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that 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.

Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that 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."

Unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for renewing the passport, and the right to travel abroad is a personal liberty of a person.

Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967 (for short "the Act") deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

---

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -

---

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

---

The Hon"ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 15 SCC 570 held that 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 Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another AIR 1978 SC 597; and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others (2019) Supreme (SC) 1516, held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty.

Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforementioned application made by the petitioner for issuance of a passport, strictly as per the provisions of the Act and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, without reference to the aforementioned crime number as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the urgency pleaded by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. No costs.

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