Madras High Court
Sanjay Ganthi vs The Regional Passport Officer on 29 September, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023
Sanjay Ganthi .. Petitioner
v.
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
K.Pudur, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to
issue passport to the petitioner based on his application in
No.MD107531548523 dated 01.05.2023.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.K.Maharajan,
Central Government Standing Counsel
for R.1
Mr.P.Kottaichamy,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R.2
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has applied for renewal of his passport. While processing the application submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent, on police verification, came to know that the petitioner has involved in two criminal cases. Therefore, the first respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner for his explanation. Apprehending that the passport would not be reissued, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent to reissue passport.
2.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Police submitted that the petitioner has involved in a case in Crime No.334 of 2018 for the offence u/s.147, 148, 294(b), 324, 336, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023 Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The said criminal case was quashed by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.2387 of 2022, dated 11.03.2022, on account of the compromise arrived upon between the parties. He further submitted that the petitioner has involved in yet another case in Crime No.335 of 2018 for the offence u/s.341 IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, on the file of the Keelavalavu Police Station and the case is still under investigation.
3.From the above, it is clear that as on date, one FIR is pending as against the petitioner. Pendency of an FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground to refuse the passport. The Passport Authority can refuse the passport and any travel documents under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) (F) of the Act would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:-
“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 -3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023 ... (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court in India.”
4.The above provision enables the Passport Authority to refuse the passport or travel document to an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is pending before a Criminal Court. Registration of an FIR on the police files, based on a complaint, cannot be construed as a proceedings pending before the Criminal Court.
5.The role of the Court pending the investigation has been discussed by various Courts. In W.Jaihar William v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (2) CWC 684], this Court has held as follows:-
“8. ... It is well settled legal principle that mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant before the Criminal Court. Only after the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant, as stipulated under Section 190 of Cr.PC., it can be 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023 construed as 'proceedings pending before the Court'”
6.A Division Bench of this Court in Arumugam v. Regional Passport Officer, Madurai [W.A(MD)No.301 of 2018, dated 27.03.2018], has held as follows:-
“8. ... mere pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be construed as pendency of the criminal proceedings. The decisions relied on for reaching the said conclusion in the above cited decision, would also disclose that unless cognizance is taken by the concerned Magistrate, it does not amount to pendency of the criminal proceedings. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the case is in FIR stage and even for the sake of arguments, subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed, as on the date of submission of the application for passport, only FIR is pending and it cannot be construed as pendency of a criminal case and it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case.”
7.In fact, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, has issued a Circular dated 10.10.2019, wherein, the following instruction was issued:-
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023 “5. In view of the above, the following instructions may be adopted while processing the passport applications in respect of those applicants who may have criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court in India:
... (vi) ... It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.” Therefore, the Passport Authority is not justified in not deciding the application filed by the petitioner for passport by referring the criminal case.
8.Ordinarily, the duration of a passport as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules is for a period of 10 years. In the event if the applicant is facing any criminal proceedings, the passport may be issued by restricting the period.
9.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Passport Authority to reissue passport to this petitioner, by considering his 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023 application, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 29.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
To
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
K.Pudur, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Keelavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.14195 of 2023
29.09.2023
8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis