Allowed

Mony Balakrishnan v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC15 Nov 2024WP(MD)/12514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's passport application was withheld due to an adverse police verification report citing a 2013 FIR. The court held that mere pendency of an FIR is not pendency of criminal proceedings and cannot bar passport issuance, directing the Passport Officer to decide the application without reference to the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the passport application without reference to the FIR and issue passport if eligible, within four weeks.

Mony Balakrishnan Vs The Regional Passport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶7

Mony Balakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai.

¶10

2.The State,

¶11

Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner on his Application No.MD4065637106923 dated 02.08.2023 with a time frame to be fixed this Court by considering the petitioner's explanation dated 24.08.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar

¶14

For R-1 : Mr.S.Karthick, Central Government Standing Counsel

¶15

For R-2 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate

¶16

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1^st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner on his Application No.MD4065637106923 dated 02.08.2023 with a time frame to be fixed this Court by considering the petitioner's explanation dated 24.08.2023.

¶20

Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶21

The petitioner applied for a passport vide application No.MD4065637106923 dated 02.08.2023 to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent vide his communication dated 18.08.2023 informed the petitioner that there was an adverse police verification report and a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in reference No.SCN/315553123/23. The petitioner submitted that in the year 2013, on an occurrence that took place in the petitioner's village between two groups, the 2^nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.560/2013 under Sections 147, 149, 47, 452 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, and he was actually not involved the criminal activities as alleged by the 2^nd respondent in the FIR. The petitioner has given an explanation to the 1^st respondent dated

¶22

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶24

24.08.2023. However, the same was not considered by the 1^st respondent. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶25

It is a settled proposition of law that a mere pendency of FIR cannot be a bar for consideration of claim for issuance of passport. This Court in the case of W.Jaihar William Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014

¶26

(2) CWC 684 has held that mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings, unless Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of offence, on filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation against the accused. Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right.

¶27

In view of the same, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner to issue a passport without reference to the FIR lodged against him and issue a passport if he is otherwise eligible for the same. The first respondent shall comply with the said direction on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶30

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There

¶31

shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

15.11.2024

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml

¶34

¶35

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai.

¶36

2.The State, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶37

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶39

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶40

Sml

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.12514 of 2024

¶42

15.11.2024

¶43

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mony Balakrishnan v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mony Balakrishnan v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Subramanian, Vs the Superintending

Murugan.a Vs the District Collector

Pothumkani Vs the District Magistrate and District Collector

Divya Bharathi R Vs The Regional Director

Vettaiselvam Vs The Regional Passport Officer

K.Chandrasekaran Vs The Regional Passport Officer