The right to travel abroad is fundamental but not absolute; it can be restricted by pending criminal proceedings, requiring court permission for travel.

O R D E R

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent by putting the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport on hold citing the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he acted as a Director of Firm called 'Dhanush Technologies Limited' and he resigned from the Directorship on 28.08.2010. After 3 years from the date of resignation, on the bases of the complaint given by wife of one of Ex-Directors of the said undertaking, the 3rd respondent herein registered criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.334/2013 under Sections 420 and 120(B) of IPC. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent also filed a charge sheet before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB-CBCID, Egmore and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.204/2022. It is further stated by the petitioner that though the criminal case was taken on file, the petitioner has not received any summons for his appearance so far. As the petitioner's passport got expired, he submitted an application seeking renewal of his passport vide application No.TR2075465028123. The 2nd respondent passed impugned order refusing to renew the passport on the ground that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to visit his grandson born on 11.03.2024 at Melbourne, Australia. Therefore, he wanted to renew his passport to enable him to visit his grandson. The learned counsel further submits that though criminal case against the petitioner was taken on file in the year 2022, so far no summons have been received by him. Merely because, the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is not justified in refusing renewal of the passport.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 3rd respondent filed a status report stating that an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.334/2013. After completion of investigation, a final report (absconding charge sheet) was filed on 25.08.2021 arraying the petitioner as 2nd accused before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.204 of 2022 on 20.01.2022. It is also stated by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner and other accused persons never appeared before the Court and the criminal case is posted on 29.11.2024 for serving summons on the accused.

5. It is seen from the averment found in the writ affidavit that filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance by the Criminal Court in C.C.No.204 of 2022 is known to the petitioner. However, he has not chosen to appear before the Court on the ground that no summons were served on him.

6. A perusal of Section 6(2)(f) of Passports Act , 1967 would indicate Passport Authority is entitled to refuse issuance of passport on the ground that a criminal proceedings against the applicant is pending for an offence allegedly committed by him. In the case on hand, admittedly a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and though summons are issued by the Court, not yet served on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent putting the application of the petitioner on hold citing pendency of the criminal case by invoking Section 6(2)(f) of the , 1967 cannot be faulted.

7. However, a pendency of the criminal case is not a total bar for curtailing the right of the petitioner to go abroad. It is always open to the petitioner to visit the Foreign Country with express permission from the Court which issued summons to him.

8. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC 570 ( Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi ) observed as follows:-

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all