The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that even if a criminal case is pending against the appellant, the appellant can legally proceed to seek the renewal of the passport subject to an order to be passed by the Court in which the criminal case is pending specifying either the validity of the passport or specifying the period for travel abroad.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the application for the renewal of the passport was filed. The show cause notice was issued to the Appellant by the passport authority seeking an explanation regarding the suppression of material information in the passport application regarding the involvement of the appellant in some criminal cases. Thereafter, it was disclosed that an F.I.R. registered under Sections 188, 269, 341, 143 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the appellant, and the same is pending before an Additional Civil Judge. The Respondent authorities didn’t issue the passport. Therefore, the present writ appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant submitted that the Appellant didn’t have any knowledge regarding the criminal case that had been registered or pending trial against him. It was furthermore submitted that the reply submitted was not considered by the Respondent, and the Respondent authorities also failed to issue the passport duly renewed in his favour. It was also submitted that the pendency of a criminal case is not a ground for refusal to either issue a passport or renew a passport. The Appellant relied upon the judgment titled Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulyu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that even though the appellant is the subject of a pending criminal case, the appellant may lawfully pursue the renewal of their passport, provided that the court where the criminal case is pending issues an order defining the validity of the passport or the time frame for travelling abroad. However, it was noted that no such application has yet been filed by the appellant before the appropriate Court till date.
The court furthermore noted that in the present case, the provision of Section 6(2)(e) is not attracted but Section 6(2)(f) which is attracted to, and therefore, the appellant would have to approach the Court in which the appellant is facing trial for appropriate orders.
Based on these considerations, the court thought that the proceedings initiated by the passport authorities by way of notice are separate, which may lead to the imposition of fines/punishment in terms of Section 12 of the Act and therefore, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed and take action as warranted by law in case there are any considerable material facts which attract the provisions of Section 12.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Appeal.
Case Title: Ravulapally Ravindranath V. The Union of India and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 704 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Javvaji Sarath Chandra