Madala Jagan Mohan Rao Vs the Union of India

THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8 PATIALA HOUSE TILAK MARG NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶16

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE 4TH FLOOR STALIN CENTRAL D.NO.27-37-158 GOVERNORPET M.G.ROAD VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GANNAVARAM URBAN POLICE STATION KRISHNA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner application made for the issuance of passport by

¶20

2

¶21

application No.VJ2075473176425 dated 18.08.2025 as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioner rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and Passport Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the application No. VJ2075473176425 dated 18.08.2025 for issuing the passport to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HOME

¶28

2.Y V ANIL KUMAR

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶31

Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4^th respondent, and perused the material available on record

¶32

The petitioner's case, in brief, is that the petitioner has approached the 3^rd respondent and made an application vide File No.VJ2075473176425 dated 18.08.2025 for issuance of passport. The 3^rd respondent refused to issue the passport on the ground that Crime No.565 of 2022 on the file of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, is pending against him.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final report has not yet been filed before the jurisdictional Court and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid reason to deny the issuance of a passport.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.565 of 2022 for the offences under section 420, 470, 471, 506 r/w 120 B I.P.C of Gannavaram Urban Police Station.

¶35

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a similar question has fallen for consideration before this Court, A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024 by an order dated 29.10.2024 directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner without further delay. In paras 16 and 17 of its order, the Division Bench observed as under:

¶36

“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

¶37

4

¶38

cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶39

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

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner and non filing of a final report. Further, unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for issuing passport.

¶41

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, since no final report has not yet been filed, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the 3^rd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide VJ2075473176425 dated 18.08.2025, without reference to Crime No.565 of 2022 on the file of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶44

Dated: 09.12.2025 SSA

Madala Jagan Mohan Rao v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madala Jagan Mohan Rao v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajulapalli Asweswara Rao Vs Union of India

N.Vijayakumari Vijayawada & 12 Others Vs Chairman Nc of Schedule Tribe New Delhi & 2 Others

M/s. Madiga Hakkula Parirakshana Seva Samithi, Vs Union of India

V. Raghupathi Naidu, S/o Venkatamuni Naidu, Vs The Government of India

Jagadeeswara Reddy Bommireddy Vs Union of India

Shaik Gayasuddin Vs the Union of India