The mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot bar passport renewal, emphasizing the right to travel under Article 21 and the necessity for authorities to comply with due process.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he has been residing in United States of America (USA) for more than a decade and employed there. He is an Indian citizen, and holds an Indian Passport bearing No. N5456091, originally valid from 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2025. As the passport was about to expire, he filed a renewal application on 16.08.2025, after which the Respondent authorities issued anacknowledgment dated 19.08.2025 containing ARN 25-2004104432. Shortly thereafter, on 21.08.2025, Respondent No.3 sent an official email requesting that the petitioner furnish the current status and supporting documents relating to any pending cases or proceedings so that his renewal application could be further processed. The petitioner replied the same day, stating that to the best of his knowledge, there were no pending cases against him. However, to his shock, he received another email dated 22.08.2025 from Respondent No.3 informing him that, during processing, it had been discovered that he was listed as an accused in Crime No.569/2021, registered under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before the Women Protection Section, Crime Zone, Hyderabad District. In response, the petitioner sent a detailed email dated 23.08.2025, asserting that he had no knowledge whatsoever of such a case, had never received any summons or notices, and therefore was unaware that any criminal proceedings existed.

1.1 Despite this clarification, Respondent No.3 sent yet another email on 09.09.2025, asking him to directly contact the Women Protection Section (WPS), Hyderabad, and update his case status because Respondent No.3 lacked access to further details about Crime No.569/2021. The petitioner, unable to do so from the United States, asked his father in Hyderabad to make the necessary enquiries. Based on the information obtained by his father, the petitioner wrote a further email dated 10.10.2025 to Respondent No.3 acknowledging that a case—Crime No.569 of 2021—had indeed been registered under the aforementioned penal provisions and that it was then pending before the Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as C.C. No.2901 of 2022. In the same communication, the petitioner asserted that the case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute initiated by his wife, Kode Sneha, which he characterized as “baseless and vague allegations” motivated by grudge and personal vendetta. In the light of this explanation, he expressly requested that the renewal of his passport be processed without reference to the pending case, particularly because the allegations did not relate to any issue affecting national security or public order.

1.2 Despite these communication exchanges, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to take any action on the renewal application and continued to keep it pending, thereby causing him grave hardship and serious professional inconvenience. He refers to the ruling of this Court ruling in Sannith Reddy Mandhadi, Writ Petition No.2422 of 2024 particularly paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein the Court held that mere pendency of criminal cases should not be a ground to deny passport facilities and directed renewal of passport for a similarly placed petitioner. Based on this precedent, the petitioner contends that the respondents’ continued refusal to renew his passport—despite his explanation dated 10.10.2025—is arbitrary, and violative of his right to travel abroad under Article 21.

1.3 It is contended that the respondents appear to justify their inaction by pointing to his alleged involv