The refusal to issue a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings is unjustified and violates the individual's right to work and freedom of movement.

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

‘‘… to issue an order, writ or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus that may be necessary declaring the action of Respondents in not issuing Police Clearance Certificate as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the Respondent Police Authorities to a clear police report and direct Respondents to issue PCC as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice and to pass…”

Heard Mr.Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sundaresan, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 6, Mr.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

Facts of the case:

3.1. The petitioner has been residing in Australia as a non-immigrant since the year 2017 and is eking out his livelihood through private employment. While he was residing in Australia, he had applied for renewal of his passport, which was duly renewed on 07.03.2019 and is valid up to 06.03.2029.

3.2. While so, basing on the complaint lodged by his wife alleging the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a case in Crime No.24 of 2018 of Women Police Station, Karimnagar, was registered against him.

3.3. During the pendency of the said criminal case, his wife filed Crl.M.P.No.337 of 2019 before the trial Court seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s passport, but the same was dismissed on 23.04.2019 and the same has attained finality.

3.4. Contrary to the said order, the Investigation Officer filed a representation before the trial Court and the learned Magistrate, by order, dated 11.03.2020 in Dis.No.243 directed to impound the passport of the petitioner, which resulted in electronic impoundment by the Indian Consulate, Melbourne. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.5141 of 2020 before this Court. This Court, by order, dated 11.03.2020 has set aside the order, dated 11.03.2020 passed in Dis.No.243 by the learned Magistrate.

3.5. For the purpose of granting visa, the Department of Home Affairs, Australia, has mandated submission of an Indian Police Clearance Certificate, failing which, the visa application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he had submitted an application for Police Clearance Certificate bearing No.AU2084401140122, through the Consulate General of India, Melbourne, however, his application was withheld due to adverse Police remarks.

3.6. The petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.772 of 2026 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.175 of 2018 and the same is pending for adjudication.

3.7. Inspite of the repeated representations made by the petitioner to the Indian Embassy at Melbourne, the Regional Passport Office at Hyderabad, the local Police Authorities and the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner has not been issued the Police Clearance Certificate, so as to enable him to submit the same to the Immigration Department, for grant of his visa for employment and permanent residency.

3.8. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.175 of 2018, NBW was issued against him by the trial Court and was recalled subsequently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-issuance of Police Clearance Certificate, on the pretext of C.C.No.175 of 2018 is pending, will curtail the petitioner’s right to work abroad under Article 19-1(g) of Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner is willing and ready to appear and cooperate with the trial, when his presence is required in C.C.No.175 of 2018. Since the petitioner has already filed a quash petition before this Court, he undertakes that upon the decision of the said petit