JUDGMENT

The petitioner who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.667 of

2010 of Thiruvallam Police Station, has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue an ordinary passport to the petitioner as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 after revoking Ext.P5, since there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner before any criminal Court.

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner on the expiry of Ext.P5, without insisting for permission from the Court, since no case is pending against her before any Criminal Court.”

2. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is as follows:

The de facto complainant ,who is in possession of 2.5 Cents of land comprised in Sy No 21/20-1 of Thiruvallam Village,permitted the accused 2 to 4, to reside in the house situated in the said property. Later, the accused persons, eight in numbers hatched a conspiracy and based on the same, a forged document was created showing that the de facto complainant has transferred the said property to the 1st accused. Later, the aforesaid property was transferred to accused Nos.2 to 4. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

4. Even though, the aforesaid crime was registered in the year 2010, it is discernible from the records that a “UN Report” was submitted by the police on 05.02.2017 as they could not collect any materials implicating any of the accused persons. Even now, the police could not find any other materials.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when she applied for passport, the same was rejected on the ground that she is involved in a criminal prosecution. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara as C.M.P.No.8022 of 2019 seeking permission to go abroad, which was allowed granting permission for two years. Subsequently, upon the expiry of the said period C.M.P.No.1878 of 2020 was submitted by the petitioner and the same was allowed as per Ext.P4. Now the period stipulated as per Ext.P4 is expiring on 20.01.2023. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in such circumstances, praying for an order directing the 1st respondent to issue an ordinary passport to the petitioner.

6. The Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, contemplates the various circumstances under which the passport can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) provides that, if any proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court in India, the passport can be refused. In this case, the question that arises is whether, the submission of “UN Report” in the crime in which the petitioner was originally implicated as an accused, can be treated as a restriction coming within the aforesaid provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the decision rendered by this Court in Thadevoose Sebstian v.Regional Passport Office [2021 (5) KLT 531], wherein the similar question was considered. It was observed therein that, the criminal proceedings can be treated as pending only when a final report is filed and cognizance thereon has been taken. In Muhammed v.Union of India [2018(4) KHC 945] it was observed by this Court as follows:

“27. As the dispute centers on the "pending crime," we may examine Guideline 4.3 (d) of the Passport Guidelines. That guideline declares that mere registration of an FIR does not attract Section 6(2)(f) or 10(3)(e) of the Act. It also no