JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2022 The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 notice issued by the Regional Passport Officer/1st respondent, asking him to show cause why the passport issued to him on 07.04.2022 shall not be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 and also under Section 12(1)(b) of the same. The reason for issuance of such notice is that, initially the passport was issued under 'Talkal' without police verification and later the passport authority received a police report to the effect that the petitioner is involved in crime No.1265/2021 of Thoppumpadi Police Station, which was registered under Sections 102 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thoppumpadi.

2. It is submitted that, even though the petitioner approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, no details of the aforesaid crime could be found. Later, it was revealed that, a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner, which is produced as Ext.P7, as mentioned above. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that, the Police had subsequently submitted a final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thoppumpadi, referring the case as undetected.

3. In such circumstances, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent not to revoke the passport to the petitioner and also for seeking for a direction to the Police to complete the proceedings in crime No.1265/2021 of Thoppumpadi Police Station. A direction for issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate for the employment purpose of the petitioner for stamping the visa in the passport was also sought for.

4. Heard Smt. Swarna Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt.

Sreeja, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 2 to 4. 5. The learned Central Government Counsel submitted that, the issuance of Ext.P6 was on getting information that the petitioner was found involved in a crime and it is for the petitioner to submit proper explanation in response to Ext.P6 and further action will be taken after hearing the petitioner on such explanation.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, initially, the crime was registered, in respect of an incident occurred on 26.07.2021, when the petitioner was found near Thoppumpadi Harbour bridge with a drone under suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, the drone and other articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner and as part of investigation, the aforesaid drone and mobile phone seized from the petitioner were sent for forensic examination to the FSL Lab at Tripunithura. The said drone and mobile phone were sent for examination to verify whether, the petitioner had taken any objectionable photographs and the report of the FSL is awaited. Since the receipt of FSL report was likely to take some time, final report was submitted in this case as 'undetected', with a view to submit a further report in case any objectionable materials are revealed from the FSL report.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the crime is referred as undetected, and since the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., the same is causing prejudice to him. This is particularly because, even for getting a police verification report, the crime and the pendency of the same are to be mentioned. The police verification report with the details of criminal case affects his prospects of employment abroad. The writ petition was submitted in such circumstances.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.17204/2021, wherein a case of similar nature was considered by this Court. In the aforesaid judgment, it was clearly observed that, mere pendency of a criminal case is not a r