The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty and cannot be denied solely due to the pendency of a criminal case without lawful justification.

ORDER

Heard Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 5 and perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner, who is an Indian citizen, has applied for a new passport under Reference No.25-1051294742. The respondent authorities have completed the enquiry and, after review, issued an acknowledgment under Application No.VJ1065142262525 to the petitioner. At the request of the respondent authorities, the petitioner submitted her self-declaration. Subsequently, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that a criminal case is pending against her for offences under Sections 448 and 427 R/w.34 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that mere pendency of a criminal case is not sufficient reason to deny issuance of a passport.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of Crime No.39 of 2022 for offenses under Sections 448 and 427 R/w.34 of IPC, after the charge sheet was filed. Since the case is pending trial under C.C. No.311 of 2022 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur, Tirupati District, the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional Court and file an application.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Court and file an application.

6. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , [(1978) 1 SCC 248] has observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone.

7. A Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, [LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048] , observed as follows:

“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.”

8. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, dated

29.10.2024, held as under:

“16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court‟, which would attract the provisions of Section

6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 .”

9. Thus, based on