Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
S.Peter – Appellant
Versus
Passport Officer – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.11373 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Atham Ali
For Respondents: Mr.P.Veerapandi, Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Mere FIR registration does not justify passport refusal under S.6 of Passports Act, 1967; requires pending court proceedings.
Headnote:Passports Act, 1967, Section 6 governs refusal of passport renewal. Petitioner applied for re-issuance of passport No.P3822443, which was withheld due to a closed criminal case (Crime No.54/2020) later sought to be reopened. Court found no pending proceedings before a criminal court. Mere FIR registration does not constitute a ground for refusal under Section 6. Issue: Whether passport renewal can be refused solely on FIR registration absent pending court proceedings. Ratio: Statutory bar under Section 6 applies only when proceedings are pending before a competent court; FIR alone insufficient (paras 5-7). Writ petition allowed; directed processing of application within four weeks, subject to eligibility.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. passport re-issuance withheld due to fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. case closed, no pending proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. fir insufficient for refusal under s.6. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. direct processing within four weeks. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to reissue passport pursuant to the application in Application No.26-1056296864 dated 06.04.2026.
2. The application submitted by the petitioner for re-issuance of passport has not been processed citing a criminal case was registered in Crime No.54 of 2020.
3. Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent No.2, on receiving instructions, submitted that the police, after investigation, closed the complaint against the petitioner and subsequently, the State has filed Crl.M.P.No.3897 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for re-opening of the case. However, as of today, no criminal case is registered as against the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The refusal to issue or renew a passport is governed by the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. Under Section 6 of the Act, the Passport Authority is empowered to refuse issuance or renewal of a passport only on the grounds specifically enumerated therein. One such ground is where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a competent criminal court in India.
6. In the present case, the only reason cited by the respondents is the registration of FIR against the petitioner. However, mere registration of FIR does not fall within the grounds contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. The statutory bar arises only when criminal proceedings are pending before a competent criminal court.
7. Therefore, the action of the first respondent in withholding the petitioner’s application solely on the basis of the registration of FIR is not in consonance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to process the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport in Application No.26-1056296864 dated 06.04.2026 and issue the passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law.
9. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four(4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
