Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
MOHAMMED SADIQ MECHRI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 709 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of passport renewal amidst ongoing fir. (Para 1) |
| 2. authority's compliance with application requirements. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's directive for timely processing. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the holder of an Indian passport. Upon expiry, he submitted Ext.P4 application for renewal of his passport before the 2nd respondent. However, the application is not considered due to the pendency of FIR No.774/2023 registered against the petitioner under Section 498A of IPC before the Thenhipalam Police Station. The petitioner states that, as per Ext.P3 agreement, the issue has been settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is further states that the pendency of FIR is not a bar for renewal of his passport. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent 1 to 2 to consider the Exhibit P4.
ii) Direct that pendency of FIR No.774/2023 of an offence of 498A in the light of Exhibit P3 is not a bar.
iii) Direct the respondent 1 to 2 issuance of passport subject to such condition as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned DSGI and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned DSGI, on instructions, submits that Ext.P4 application for renewal of passport was filed without the requisite fees. However, the petitioner has now paid the fees and the application will be considered in accordance with law.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made across the Bar, there will be direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the application is to be considered by the Consulate General of India, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the 2nd respondent shall forward the same to that authority forthwith and the said authority shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4, within the aforesaid time limit.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
