Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the refusal to renew a passport requires the pendency of criminal proceedings before a criminal court; mere registration of an FIR or pendency of an investigation where cognizance has not been taken does not justify the denial of passport services.

ORDER :

Heard Sri N. Ganesh Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus being aggrieved for not renewing the petitioner’s passport by respondent No.3 pursuant to the application No.VJF076628698126 purportedly on the ground of pendency of Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Railway Kodur (U) Police Station, Tirupati District.

3. The facts of the case germane to decide the lis and the contentions in the affidavit are as follows:

(a) The petitioner was issued the passport vide Application No.N6005977 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad which is valid upto 21.12.2025 and as the period lapsed and expired, an application was submitted on 01.04.2026, for renewal of the passport, to respondent No.3 through the Passport Seva Kendra, Railway Koduru, with the application Reference No. (ARN) 26-1055514164 with file No.VJF076628698126. The receipt of the said application dated 01.04.2026 was annexed to the petition as Ex.P.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as on the date of submitting the application for issuance / renewal, there was no crime or criminal proceedings pending and the complaint was instituted only on the next day of submitting the application for renewal i.e. on 02.04.2026. A false complaint was filed by Ms.Iskapatla Harsha Veena, a crime was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of Railway Koduru (U) Police Station, Tirupati District for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 79, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and in the said complaint, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 and as on today, investigation is in progress and no final report is filed nor cognizance is taken by the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction.

5. In another case, the petitioner, in Crime No.150 of 2024, was arrayed as accused No.2 on the file of the Railway Kodur (U) Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and after investigation on the final report, the learned Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, after evaluating prima facie case, in the light of the evidence and findings recorded by the investigating agency, the cognizance was taken only against accused No.1 and refused to take the cognizance against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the same, the petitioner is deemed to be effectively discharged from Crime No.150 of 2024 and to be treated as no criminal proceedings pending against him. In view of the said fact, the passport, cannot be denied to be renewed under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner further to substantiate his contentions stated that in pursuance of the investigation in Crime No.150 of 2024, a charge sheet in C.C.No.243 of 2024 was filed on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur and the summons were issued to accused No.1 and not to the accused No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein, and only