Allowed

K.Murugan v. The Passport Officer

Madras HC25 Apr 2023WP(MD)/8397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Passport Officer to issue notice, obtain undertaking, and issue the passport to the petitioner within 12 weeks, holding that mere filing of a final report without conviction does not bar issuance given the presumption of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Passport Officer to issue notice, obtain undertaking, and issue the passport within 12 weeks.

K.Murugan Vs The Passport Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.8397 of 2023

K.Murugan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Street, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, Madurai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to issue passport to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation, dated on 29.03.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah. For R1 :Ms.Thenmozhi For R2 :Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader *****

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner by considering the representation, dated 29.03.2023.

¶18

2.Heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Thenmozhi, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent.

¶19

3.In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it had been stated that an FIR in Cr.No.492 of 2022 had been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 290, 291 and 341 of IPC against the petitioner herein by the second respondent.

¶20

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader was requested to file a status report relating to the investigation and it had been stated that consequent to investigation, final report had been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, but the learned Judicial Magistrate had not yet taken cognizance of the said final report.

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

5.A perusal of the records filed along with the Writ Petition reveal

¶24

that the petitioner had filed an application seeking passport in File No.MD1065118154923.

¶25

6.A direction is issued to the first respondent to issue notice to the

¶26

petitioner herein and on appearance of the petitioner, get necessary undertaking from the petitioner, as is required, and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, proceed to issue passport to the petitioner herein. It must be kept in mind that the presumption of innocence runs deep and strong in criminal jurisprudence in this country. Only a final report alone has been filed against the petitioner herein, but the petitioner has not yet been convicted and for that, the prosecution will have to travel a long way. The entire exercise by the first respondent may be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Index :Yes / No 25.04.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No cmr 3/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, Madurai.

¶32

4/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶35

cmr

¶36

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8397 of 2023

¶37

25.04.2023

¶38

5/5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Murugan v. The Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Murugan v. The Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasline M Vs The Registrar

Arumugam, Vs The Commissioner

Kamuthi Vattara Santhai Vyabarigal Sangam Vs The District Collector

M/s. Csb Construction Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Jonsy Mary (Wrongly mentioned) Vs The Government of India

Karuppiah .S.P.D Vs The Superintending Engineer