B Rama Krishna Vs the Union of India

B RAMA KRISHNA, S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O.D.NO.56/37-9, SHANTHI NAGAR, ITI CIRCLE, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R KADAP DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, , MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI REP., BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP., BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, TIRUPATHI.

¶15

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP., BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RIMS U/G POLICE STATION, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order r direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in reissuing Passport No. H 0552446 issued

¶20

2

¶21

JS,J W.P.No.20056/2025

¶22

in my favour by considering the Application Reference Number ARN 241010695979 citing the pendency of protest petition against me in Cr.No. 100/2016 for the offences under Sections in 406, 409, 420, 468 I.P.C and 38(40) of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Act, 1995 on the file of RIMS Police Station, Y.S.R District, registered against me and 25 others, wherein a referred charge sheet was filed as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967and the well-established legal principles being laid down by this Honble Court as well as the Honble Apex Court from time to time apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to reissue the Passport No.0552446 issued in my favour for a further period of 10 years and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased maybe pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the Application Reference Number ARN 24- 1010695979 for reissuing of Passport No. H 0552446 without referring to the crime in Cr.No. 100/2016 on the file of RIMS Police Station, Y.S.R District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.

¶29

3

¶30

JS,J W.P.No.20056/2025

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

The petitioner's case, in brief, is that the petitioner is Police Constable and was issued a passport bearing No. H0552446, dated 09.09.2008, for ten years period. On 26.08.2024, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of passport vide file No.24-1010695979. Pursuant to his application, the respondent authorities have not processed his application due to the submission of an adverse verification report by the Police i.e., his involvement in Crime No.100 of 2016 on the file of RIMS U/G Police Station, Kadapa.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment, dated 29.10.2024, wherein a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case visà-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows:

¶35

<16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶36

17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if

¶37

4

¶38

JS,J W.P.No.20056/2025

¶39

cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of >proceedings pending before a criminal Court?, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.=

¶40

At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submits that a protest petition in Crime No.100 of 2016 is pending before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa vide Crl.M.P.No.Nil/2021. Since the competent criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court.

¶41

In the case on hand, Crime No.100 of 2016 on the file of the RIMS U/G Police Station, Kadapa was transferred to the CID, Tirupathi for further investigation. As the case was referred as non-cognizable by the CID, further action is dropped against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.01.2022. However, a protest petition vide Crl.M.P.No.Nil/2021 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, is pending against the petitioner. The Criminal Court has taken cognizance. Once the criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application.

¶42

Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner, without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court, has straightaway approached this Court. The petitioner was expected to submit his explanation. This Court does not find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned.

¶43

5

¶44

JS,J W.P.No.20056/2025

¶45

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional criminal Court and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶48

Date: 10.12.2025 KAS

¶49

6

¶50

JS,J W.P.No.20056/2025

¶51

229