IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
S. Premkumar – Petitioner
Versus
Regional Passport Officer, Trichirapalli and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 6257 of 2024
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Passport - Re-issue of Passport - The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the re-issue of the petitioner's passport in light of the settled position of law that the pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not a bar for the issuance of a passport.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought re-issue of passport as the original passport was due to expire, but received a show cause notice due to the pendency of an FIR against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the re-issue of the passport in accordance with the settled position of law regarding the issuance of passports in cases where a criminal case or FIR is pending.
Issues: Pendency of FIR and re-issue of passport
Ratio Decidendi: The settled position of law states that the pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not a bar for the issuance of a passport.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Regional Passport Officer to consider the re-issue of the passport within a specified time period.
JUDGMENT :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider his Application No. TR7076177830924 dated 19.01.2024, within the time limit.
1. V. Ashok Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice for R1/the Regional Passport Officer, Trichirappalli and Mr. V. Meghanathan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R2/Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathiram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District. They are armed with instructions to enable final disposal of this Writ Petition, even at the stage of admission. Hence, by consent, the following order is passed.
2. The petitioner had been issued a passport on 25.04.2014 bearing No. L8706072. An FIR had been registered against the petitioner by R2 for alleged offences under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No. 790 of 2020.
3. Mr. Meganathan confirms that the matter is still at FIR stage and no charge sheet has been filed.
4. The petitioner had sought re-issue of passport on 19.01.2024, as the original passport was due to expire on 24.04.2024. In response, the petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 05.02.2024 referring to the adverse police report on account of the pendency of FIR and calling for explanation and Court order. The first respondent also extends a hearing in person to the petitioner between 9.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon on all working days.
5. The petitioner states that a reply has been sent on 19.02.2024. There is an acknowledgement of receipt by way of a postal track placed at page 25 of the typed set of papers. The petitioner further relies upon GSR No. 570(E), Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.08.1993 and on orders passed by the Writ Court to the effect that pendency of criminal case or FIR is not a bar for issuance of passport.
6. The settled position of law in regard to the issuance/renewal or otherwise of the passport in cases where FIR/criminal case is pending has been set out by the First Bench of this Court in Regional Passport Officer vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and Another, W.A. No. 902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023 and of the writ court in Suresh vs. Regional Passport Officer, W.P. No. 30019 of 2023 order dated 17.11.2023 and Nedumaran Palaniappan vs. Regional Passport Officer, W.P. No. 28448 of 2023 order dated 24.11.2023 among several other orders.
7. In light of the aforesaid, let the petitioner appear before R1 on any day between 11.03.2024 and 15.03.2024 between 9.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon with a copy of the reply stated to have been sent on 19.02.2024.
8. R1 will hear the petitioner, consider the reply and take a decision on the question of issue/re-issue of passport to the petitioner, having regard to the settled position of law in this regard, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date when the petitioner presents himself before him.
9. This writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
AI
The pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not a bar for the issuance of a passport.
Mere FIR registration does not justify passport refusal under Section 6 of Passports Act, 1967; requires pending court proceedings.
Mere FIR registration does not bar passport issuance under Section 6 of Passports Act, 1967; requires pending court proceedings.
The mere pendency of a criminal case against the applicant shall not stand as a bar for issuance/re-issuance of passport.
Mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings and cannot be a bar for the issuance of passport.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.