IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the renewal or re-issuance of a passport cannot be denied solely on the ground of pending criminal cases if the proceedings are at the stage of investigation and the concerned court has not taken cognizance of the offense.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal/re-issuance of his passport.

2. Heard Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned senior counsel along with Sri Kashyap N.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Priyanka S. Bhat, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows :

The petitioner claims to be a lawyer by profession, registered himself with the Bar Council of Karnataka. Petitioner also claims to have registered in New York State Bar of the United States. He is said to be holding a passport issued by the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru, on 05.04.2013, which was valid till 04.04.2023. Six months prior to the expiry of the passport, the petitioner submits an application seeking renewal/re-issuance of passport.

4. In consideration of the application, a police verification process is undertaken for such re-issuance/renewal. It is averred that during the police verification, it is known that the petitioner is embroiled in three proceedings. One M.C.No.2679/2022 which was initiated at Bengaluru against his wife, is now transferred to Lucknow in terms of an order passed by the Apex Court; another proceeding in C.C.No.621/2022 filed by the wife against the petitioner seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the third proceeding is a proceeding instituted by the wife in Crl.Misc.No.2524/2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2012. All proceedings are pending before the concerned jurisdictional Courts at Lucknow. At the time of police verification, the petitioner informs the police about all the aforesaid proceedings.

5. A fourth proceeding is a crime registered by the petitioner in Crime No.157/2022 against his wife invoking Sections 384, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The averment in the petition is that, as a counter blast, the wife also registers a crime in Crime No.164/2022 before the jurisdictional police at Lucknow for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner has challenged the same before the High Court of Allahabad and the said challenge is pending consideration.

6. On 16.03.2023, the petitioner receives a letter from the Regional Passport Office informing the petitioner that they have received an adverse verification report from the police and seeks a written explanation. The petitioner replies to the notice enclosing all the documents as was sought for. No response comes about. Thereafter, the petitioner approaches the respondent and explains that his passport requires to be reissued/renewed, no action is taken. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

7. The learned senior counsel would submit that the passport is not reissued/renewed by the respondent on the score that there are three cases pending against the petitioner. One, a case instituted by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.; another case instituted by the wife invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2012 and a crime in Crime No.164/2022 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned senior counsel would submit that the crime in Crime No.164/2022 has been stayed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl.Misc.Writ Petition No.9651/2022.

8. Learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondent – Union of India would refute the submissions to contend that there are three proceedings pending against the petitioner and therefore, the passport cannot be issued as is sought by the petitioner in the application. No fault can be found in the act of the respondent in not considering the application submitted for renewal of passport.

9. I have given my anxious consideration t