SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Raju Kattakayam S/o Sebastian - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 324 OF 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
For the Respondent: O.M. SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
RAJESH A,SPL PP VACB,SRPP REKHA.S FOR VACB

The court ruled that without a final report or cognizance, no criminal proceedings are pending, allowing passport renewal without court permission.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - The petitioner sought to quash conditions imposed on passport renewal by the Special Judge, arguing no criminal proceedings were pending against him. The court found that since no final report was filed, the petitioner was entitled to passport renewal without court permission. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that mere registration of a crime does not constitute pending criminal proceedings, and the passport authority can decide on passport issuance without court permission if no cognizance has been taken. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a corruption case, applied for passport renewal. The Special Judge imposed conditions for renewal, which the petitioner contested.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition in part, quashing onerous conditions imposed on the passport renewal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner required court permission for passport renewal given the status of criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without a final report or cognizance, no criminal proceedings were pending, thus allowing passport renewal without court conditions.

Result: The original petition (Criminal) is allowed in part, with conditions 2 to 5 quashed.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Original Petition (Criminal) has been led under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the prayers are as follows:-

1. To call for the records reading to Ext.P2 and quash the same, and direct the 3rd respondent to renew the passport bearing No. M 474 8717 issued on 29.12.2014 from the passport office, Kozhikode, without insisting for a “no objection” from the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery;

2. Dispense with the ling of the english translation of the vernacular documents, as the petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court; and

3. Grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala, in detail.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per FIR in Crime No. 07/2024/SCK, a case was registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended 2018. However, so far, the investigation has not been completed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, before ling the final report, no criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 6(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, said to be pending before a criminal court in India. In such circumstances, even though it was not necessary for the petitioner, the accused in the crime, to apply to the special court for renewal of his passport, he filed an application on misunderstanding.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said application was considered by the learned Special Judge and allowed the same as per Ext.P2 order, and imposed conditions as under:-

1. The passport authority shall renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 5 years, if the application is in order, and in the event of its renewal, the passport authority shall intimate the renewal of the passport of the petitioner to this Court.

2. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before this court within 15 days of the receipt of the same.

3. The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of this court.

4. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- as security for his prompt appearance as and when directed by this court.

5. The petitioner shall also file an affidavit to the effect that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of this Court on the basis of the passport renewed and in case of the default in his part to comply with any of the above conditions, the security amount of Rs.20,000/- and bail bond executed by him can be forfeited without notice.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, Ext.P2 order is liable to be set aside, as the petitioner is entitled to apply for a passport even without the permission of the court, since no criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 6(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 pending against him. He has placed the decision of this court reported in 2021 (5) KHC 625 Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Office and Another in support of his argument.

5. As far as the legal position pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the learned public prosecutor also did not raise dispute. The learned public prosecutor submitted that, in this matter, the investigation has been progressing, but final report not led so far.

6. It is true that, as per section 6(f) of the passport Act 1967, which deals with the power of the passport authority to refuse passport, travel documents etc, the passport authority should refuse to issue passport, or travel documents for visiting the foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the grounds stated in Section 6(2)(a)(2)(i). Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passport Act provides

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top