ORDER :

Heard Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus being aggrieved for not renewing the petitioner’s passport by respondents pursuant to the Application Reference No.26-1053689132, dated 25.02.2026, purportedly on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri.

3. The facts narrated in the affidavit are that the passport was initially issued on 24.02.2016 vide passport No.N.7985881, which expired on 23.02.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for renewal before the 2nd respondent vide Application Reference No.26-1053689132, dated 25.02.2026. The receipt of the said application dated 25.02.2026 was annexed to the petition as Ex.P.1. The petitioner contends that he appeared before the authorities and submitted all the necessary papers. However, at the stage of processing the application, the authorities raised an objection with reference to the pendency of C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri.

4. In the affidavit, it is averred that the proceedings in the said case had already been stopped by a judicial order dated 11.07.2011 passed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., owing to complete prosecutorial inaction and non-execution of summons. Since the date of the said order, no effective proceedings whatsoever have taken place before the criminal Court, and there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is involved in the said criminal case pertaining to the alleged offences.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said criminal case has remained completely dormant for more than fifteen years, and there is no active trial, no recording of evidence, no live prosecution, no effective adjudicatory process, and no subsisting order passed by any criminal Court restraining the petitioner from holding or obtaining a passport.

6. Learned counsel would further states that the core issue arising in the present Writ Petition is whether a proceeding, which had already been stopped under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., and thereafter remained dormant for more than fifteen years, can still be treated as ‘pending criminal proceedings’ for the purpose of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

7. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is of the opinion that it would be necessary to refer to Section 6(2) (f) of the Passport Act.

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

---

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -

---

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

8. It is to be noted that in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549 = 2020 CriLJ (SC) 572, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while answering Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, has observed that pendency of criminal appeal is not an automatic bar for issuance of a passport, and that Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be balanced with the necessity of securing presence of the accused.

9. The only embargo postulated in the said Section is that the cognizance needs to be taken by the competent Court and the said proceedings to be pending before the criminal Court.

10. In the present case, as could be seen, the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., since the non-execution of the NBW against A1 and summons against A2, who is the petitioner herei