The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complete information in police verification reports for passport re-issuance, as well as the interpretation of specific clauses of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondent to re-issue him passport.

2. The petitioner was issued passport on 14.02.2008 which expired on 13.02.2018. The petitioner vide application dated 12.06.2018 applied for re-issuance of passport. An FIR No. 234 dated 20.09.2011, Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner entered into compromise with complainant who has passed away. The petitioner on 20.03.2018 applied for re-issuance of passport. The police submitted adverse verification report and passport authority closed file of the petitioner. The petitioner vide application dated 13.03.2020 again applied for the passport. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 23.02.2021 to the petitioner but he did not reply. The respondent on 18.11.2022 closed application of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police has not filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, thus, case of the petitioner is neither covered by Clause (e) or (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967.

4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Tarsem Lal, submits that till date the police has not completed investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents-UOI submits that application of the petitioner has been closed and if petitioner files fresh application, it would be disposed of within 06 weeks considering the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal @ Mohna vs. Union of India and Others, 2023 SCC Online (P&H) 1391.

6. In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the respondents-UOI, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh application seeking passport. If fresh application is filed, it shall be disposed of, in accordance with law, within 06 weeks from the date of application.

7. Before parting with this order, it is inevitable to add that this Court, everyday, is adverting with more than 10 cases relating to passport. All the cases are arising on account of denial of passport. The passport authorities are denying passport on account of adverse police verification report. It has been noticed that police officials are sending incomplete report which is root cause of denial of passport. The police officials are casually disclosing that an FIR is pending against the applicant. They do not disclose actual status of the FIR. After notice of motion to passport authority as well as State, it comes out that police either has already filed cancellation report or police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has not been filed or applicant has already been convicted. It has also been found that where there is conviction, a period of more than 05 years has passed away prior to the date of application and in many cases, the quantum of sentence awarded is less than 02 years. If complete information is submitted by police authorities, a substantial litigation may be avoided. This Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) has concluded:

27. In view of above facts and findings, this court concludes and further holds:

(i) Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post conviction or post acquittal proceedings.

(ii) As soon as a person is convicted or acquitted, he would be governed by Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of 1967 Act.

(iii) Notification dated 25.8.1993 is applicable to criminal proceedings pending before trial court and as per instructions dated 10.10.2019, mere registration of FIR is not sufficient whereas a case should be registered before Court and Court must have taken cognizance.

(iv) Clause (e) of Section 6(2) can be invoked if an applicant; within 5 years preceding the date of application, for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude has been sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 2 years.

(v) High Court is not criminal court in terms of Section 6