Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, J.
Seema - Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.11236 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Passport - Renewal - Mere pendency of FIR not a bar for issuing passport
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Agency Development Manager at HDFC Life Insurance, applied for renewal of her passport, but the application was not considered due to an adverse police verification report linking her to a pending criminal case. She filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the passport authority to issue her passport.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mere pendency of an FIR is not a sufficient reason to deny the issuance of a passport, and directed the passport authority to consider the petitioner's application and make a decision within four weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pendency of an FIR can be a valid reason to deny the issuance of a passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere pendency of an FIR is not a bar for the authority to issue a passport, and directed the passport authority to consider the petitioner's application and make a decision in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the passport authority to consider the petitioner's application and make a decision within four weeks.
ORDER :
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner considering the Application in No.MD1075216659923 dated 28.03.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner, by considering the Application in No.MD1075216659923 dated 28.03.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is working an Agency Development Manager, HDFC Life Insurance, Madurai Branch. Since her passport is about to expire on 20.10.2023, she applied for renewal of her passport on 28.03.2023 with an application No. MD1075216659923. The first respondent sent a communication stating that an adverse police verification report was received that she is involved in a case in Crime No.167 of 2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent and requesting her to send her explanation in this regard within a period of 30 days. She has also sent her reply to the first respondent on 22.04.2023 that due to family dispute, a false complaint has been given against her, based on which, the said case has been registered. Despite the same, her passport application has not been considered. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to family dispute, a false complaint has been given against her, based on which, the said case has been registered. He would further submit that it is a settled position of law that the mere pendency of FIR is not a bar for the authority to issue passport to the petitioner.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent will consider the explanation given by the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a settled position of law that the mere pendency of FIR is not a bar for the authority to issue passport. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's passport application and take an appropriate decision on it in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
AI
The mere pendency of an FIR is not a sufficient reason to deny the issuance of a passport.
The pendency of an FIR should not automatically prohibit the issuance of a passport, and the passport application should be considered on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hear....
Mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings and cannot be a bar for the issuance of passport.
The pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not a bar for the issuance of a passport.
The Court established that the pendency of an FIR does not legally impede the issuance of a passport.
A passport cannot be denied solely on the grounds of an FIR registration; pending criminal cases must be substantiated for denial under the Passports Act.
The pendency of an FIR does not impede the issuance of a passport.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
