Mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings and cannot be a bar for the issuance of passport.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner based on his Passport Application in No.TR1065974656123 (Application Ref.No.23-1014008087) dated 15.11.2023.)

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner based on his Passport Application in No.TR1065974656123 (Application Ref.No.23-1014008087) dated 15.11.2023

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner applied for the issuance of passport through his application No.TR1065974656123. On receipt of the said application, the first respondent issued a letter on 05.12.2023 calling the petitioner for enquiry and give an explanation about the Crime No.119 of 2022 pending on the file of the second respondent police station. The petitioner's application for grant of passport was not considered by the Passport Authority, on the ground that an FIR is pending as against this petitioner. Hence the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

4. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Writ Petition is premature, as the Petitioner's application was neither rejected nor closed, as on date. The Petitioner was asked to appear before the first respondent for clarification about the pendency of the criminal case registered against him and the Petitioner did not appear before the authorities, but had filed the present Writ Petition. Further, the first respondent could not proceed with the issuance of passport on the ground that FIR has been registered against the Petitioner in Crime No.119 of 2022.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent Police would submit that the Petitioner has involved in a criminal case and that the crime being a heinous crime and hence, the authorities cannot issue passport to him. The case is in preliminary stage. The Petitioner is under criminal investigation and only after the completion of trial, the first respondent can decide the issue and pass appropriate orders. She would further submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and the same was not taken on file.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner produced a decision of this Court in the case of W.Jaihar William and others .vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014(2) CWC 684, wherein, it has been observed as follows:

''8........the applications submitted by the Petitioners for passport were not considered by the third respondent for the reason that FIRs are pending against them. The Superintendent of Police , Tirunelveli, has filed counter affidavits stating that First Information Reports have been filed against the Petitioners for the alleged offences, stated supra, since they are involved in the agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Project. So far as the Petitioner in W.P(MD)NO.8349 of 2014 is concerned, the criminal case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353 and 307 IPC. Since the FIRs are pending against the Petitioners, the third respondent has not considered the applications of the Petitioners, by placing reliance on section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.Section 6(2)(f) reads as follows:

6. Refusal of passports,travel documents, etc---(i)....

(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 © of sub section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds and on no other ground namely:

(a) and (b).........

(f)that proceedings in r