Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
The Government of India Represented through The Regional Passport Officer – Respondent
Writ Petition | Article 226
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik
For the Respondents:Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (crl.side)
The pendency of criminal cases at the FIR stage does not preclude the issuance of a passport.
Headnote:This case examines the provisions under Section 6 of the Passport Act concerning the renewal of passports in light of ongoing criminal proceedings. The petitioner sought reissuance of a passport, which was pending due to a criminal case. The court observed that the pendency at the FIR stage does not bar issuance of a passport, referencing prior jurisprudence. The court ordered the renewal of the passport provided certain conditions related to the criminal proceedings were adhered to.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks passport renewal despite criminal case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's reasoning on passport issuance rights (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. directions issued for passport renewal with conditions (Para 5) |
O R D E R
The petitioner before this Court seeking a direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reissue/renew the petitioner’s passport, which is pending under Reference No. DE1159411950225, by considering the petitioner’s email dated 03.03.2026
2. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in S.T.C. No.489 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.516 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to reissue/renewal of passport as per Section 6 of the Passport Act.
3. This Court carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.
4. In similar circumstances, the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.12515 of 2022 dated 12.05.2022 had held that it is well settled that pendency of the Criminal Case at the FIR stage, is not a bar for issuance of the Passport. It is true that if it has culminated in filing of the final report, permission of the Court for issuance of Passport will have to be obtained, but this requirement is applicable only if the petitioner wants to leave India. It cannot apply when the petitioner wants to come back to India. In a similar circumstances, the coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Rahul Ravindran vs Union of India and others, reported in 2021 (4) MLJ 289=MANU/TN/4595/2021, had taken favorable view and disposed of the writ petition on certain directions. At present, the petitioner is residing in Dubai. The passport issued to him was valid up to 02.08.2025, and he intends to return to India.
5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
a) The petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the Indian Embassy at Dubai enclosing a certified/web-copy of this order made in this writ petition.
b) Immediately on receipt of such representation, the Passport of the petitioner shall be re-issued/renewed for a period of two years;
c) On such re-issuance/renewal, the petitioner shall come over to India and take immediate steps to participate in the Criminal proceedings and work out his remedy and defend himself in the case;
d) The petitioner shall also file a memo before the concerned Court, where the criminal case is pending and bring to the notice of the said Court, the orders passed in this writ petition; and e) If in case the criminal case does not come to an end within the period of which the Passport has been re-issued/renewed, the petitioner shall get the necessary permission only from the concerned Court in line with the notification issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of External Affairs in G.S.R.298(E) dated 14.04.1976.
6. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
