Allowed

Chikka Raghunandan v. The Union of India

Telangana HC3 Dec 2025WP/32058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A software engineer in the USA sought mandamus for renewal of his Indian passport, withheld due to a pending dowry case against him. Holding that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot stall renewal absent a reasoned order under Section 10 of the Passports Act after notice and hearing, the court directed renewal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to renew the petitioner's passport for a period of one year; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Chikka Raghunandan Vs The Union of India — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION O:32058 oF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

chikka Raghunandan, S/o chikka R-ama Rao, Age. 40 years, occ. Software Engineer, .R/o. FlarNo. 201, Neha Apartment's, 6e'sioe Vtat; B;;k dlony, p.r9nqq Ave n ue, Bowenpa rly, -ggqqrig-elqba!, reringana presenfl y resid ing at 1235 Lilac lane, Dover, NH 03g20, usA, Rep.by his GpA r,oroei'c.-Rr*, Rao s/o, Late Narasimha, R/o. Flat.No .2g.i,leLd'Ap;rtments, Beside Vysya Bank Colony, Padmaja Avenue, Bowenpalry, feljngjni.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Rep-.by it's-secretary Ministry of External Affairs Government of lndia, crV'Divi-sion, TV1 seCti6n, F;iil6 nouse'Avenue,"New Delhi.

¶12

The Regional Passport office Authority, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

ASo, Passport Section consulate General of lndia, New york

¶14

9^ol:yt (CPV), Consulate General of lndia. 3 East 64th Street, New york 10065

¶15

The state of relangana, Department of Home, Rep. by its princioal Secretary secretariat, Hyderabad. R5'is impteaded as p'er cio.'cr i.ig.1o.i6D's in lA. No 2t2025

¶16

91. C -Snehq, ,Wlg. C. Fugf,qnqllgn, fOed 32 years, Occ House wife, Caste Padma.shali, R/o H. No.^-6-6-440t4,. 38"/A, tst' riooi, Behind Cdd-toer., Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

RG is impleaded as per c.o. dt.03.11.202s in tA. No. 3/2025

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 to 4 in not renewing the passport of Petitioner bearing Passport No.N54560g1

¶20

pursuant to the Renewal Application dated 16.08.2025 and confirmation letter dated^'19.08.2025 vide Government Reference Number (ARN) 25-2004104432, as illegal, arbitrary. violative of Principles Natural Justice, violative of Article^'14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the ratio laid down in Sannith Reddy Mandhadi vs The Union of lndia and another by this Honble High Court and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to forthwith renew the passport of the Petitioner made vide renewal application dated 16.08.2025 and confirmation letter dated 19.O8.2025 vide Government Reference Number (ARN) 25-2004'104432, under Section 10 of Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980 without reference to the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner in Cr. No.569 of 2021, registered under Section 498A, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC) and Sec 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of Women Protection Section (WPS), Crime Zone (CZ), Hyderabad District which is presently pending adjudication before the Honble Xlll Addl Chief tvletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad District, vide CC No.290112022.

¶21

!A NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 Respondent No.2 to 4 to issue fresh passport duly renewing the passport forthwith duly considering the reply email / representation / explanation dated 10.'10.2025 and dispose off the renewal application dated 16.08.2025 and confirmation Letter dated 19.O8.2025 vide Goverriment Reference Number (ARN) 25-2004'104432, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

co u nse r for the^petition"'' T'r: st[:Iii.T,ri,?lff ;,."'

¶24

counser for the Respondents No.1ro4

¶25

is5'r"dill+ii+r_=^t Govr couN.EL)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.S : SRI RAMANJANEYULU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRI T.SURYA SATISH

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

wp_32058_2025 N8K, I

IN THE HIGH CO^,URTFOR STATE OF TELAI\ t.^ANA HYD

¶33

THE N'BLE RI JUSTIC E NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶34

WRIT PET ON No of2025

¶35

03'd Decem ber, 2025

¶36

Chikka Raghunandan,^{s/o ChikkaRama Rao} (Rep. by his GPA holder c.^{Rama Rao, S/o Late Narasimha Rao)}

.... Petitioner

AND

(

I . The Union of^India,

¶41

Rep. by its Secretary,^{Ministry of ExtemalAffairs,} and others

¶42

Respondents

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

The case of^{the petitioner, preciselyas per the writ affidavit,is that he} has been residing^{in UnitedStates of America (USA) for more than a decade} and employed thpre.^{He is an Indiancitizen, and hotds an Indian Passport} bearing No. N5456091,^{originatly valid from 0l .12.201 5 to 30. 11.2025 ' As} the passport was^{about to expire, he f,rled a renewal application on} 16.08.2025, after which^{the Respondentauthoritiesissuedan} acknowledgment dated^{19.08.2025 containing ARN 25-2004104432'} Shortly thereafter, on^{21.08.2025, Respondent No.3 sent an official email} requesting that the^{petitioner furnish the current statusand supporting} documents relating to any^{pendingcases or proceedingsso that his renewal} application could^{be further processed.The petitioner replied the same day,} \ \

¶45

¶46

wp_32058_2025 NB(, J

¶47

stating that to the best of his knowledge, there were no pending cases against him. However, to his shock, he received another email dated 22.08.2025 from Respondent No.3 informing him that, during^processing, it had been discovered that he was listed as an accused in Crime No.56912021,, registered under Sections 498,4. and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before the Women Protection Section, Crime Zone, Hyderabad District. In response, the petitioner sent a detailed email dated 23.08.2025, asserting that he had no knowledge whatsoever of such a case, had never received any summons or notices, and therefore was unaware that any criminal proceedings existed.

¶48

t.l Despite this clarification, Respondent No.3 sent yet another email on 09.09.2025, asking him to directly contact the Women Protection Section (WPS), Hyderabad, and update his case status because Respondent No.3 lacked access to further details about Crime No.56912021. The petitioner, unable to do so from the United States, asked his father in Hyderabad to make the necessary enquiries. Based on the information obtained by his father, the petitioner wrote a funher email dated 10.10.2025 to Respondent No.3 acknowledging that a case-{rime No.569 of 2021had indeed been registered under the aforementioned penal provisions and that it was then pending before the Hon'ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as C.C. No.2901 of 2022.In the same communication, the petitioner asserted that the case stemmed from- a matrimonial dispute initiated by his wife, Kode Sneha, which he characterized as "baseless and vague allegations" motivated by grudge and personal vendetta. In the light of this explanation, he expressly requested that the renewal of his passport be processed without reference to the

/ a

T :

wp_32058_2025 NBK, J

pending case, particularly because the allegations did not^relate to^{any issue} affecting national security or public order.

¶55

1.2 Despite these communication exchanges, the^Respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to take any action on the renewal^{applicationand} continUed to keep it pending, thereby causing^{him grave hardship and} serious professional inconvenience. He^refers to^{the ruling of this Court} ruling in Sannith Reddy Mandhadil,^{particularly paragraphs 15 and 16,} wherein the Court held that mere^pendency of criminal^{cases shouldnot be} a ground to deny passport facilities and directed^{renewal of passport for a} similarly placed petitioner. Based on this^{precedent, the petitionercontends} that the respondents' continued refusal to renew^{his passport--despitehis} explanation dated 10.10.2025-is arbitrary,^{and violative of his right to} travel abroad under Article 21.

¶56

1.3 It is contended that the respondents appear^{to justifftheir} inaction by pointing to his alleged involvement^{in Crime No.569/2021. The} petitioner states that the respondent countered the^{renewal requestof the} petitioner by alleging through email dated^{22.08.2A25that the petitioner was} indeed an accused in that case^{and thereforerenewal couldnot proceed} without further veiification.^{The petitionercontends that these counter-} allegations are unsupported by any^{summons or notice ever served on him} and maintains that the criminal^{proceedings themselvesarise froma} matrimonial complaint, not from^{any crimina[ wrongdoing. As such, the} clash between allegations and counter-allegations^{center on whether the} pendency of a dowry-related complaint-whose^{legitimacy is in dispute--}

¶57

1 Writ Petition No.2422 of 2024

\ \

&k.,... rc,&*.

wp_32058_2025 NBK, J

can lawfully obstruct a citizen's right to renewal of a passport needed for ongoing employment abroad.

¶63

1.4 The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition, acting through his father and General Power of Attorney holder, authorized under a GPA dated 18.10.2025, seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities to renew the petitioner's passport.

¶64

A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6, Kode Sneha, through her mother and General Power of Auorney holder Kode Satyalaxmi, under a GPA dated 24.03.2025, stating that the marriage of respondent No.6 was solemnized with the petitioner on 15.11 .2015, and the marital relationship deteriorated almost immediately after the wedding conducted on 15.11.2015. [t is contended that she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner and his parents from the inception of her married life, and that prolonged mistreatment led her to lodge a complaint on 05.08.2021 before the women Police Station, Central Crime Station, DD Hyderabad. This complaint was registered as FIR No. 569 of 2021 invoking offences under Sections 498A and 506 of the IpC and the Dowry prohibition Act. The respondent emphasizes that on 05.08.2021 itself, the police served a notice under Section 4 t A of Cr.P.C. on the parents of the writ petitioner, and that this notice was a.lso "received on behalf of the petitioner" by his father-the very person who now files and verifies the writ petition as his GPA holder.

¶65

2.1 It is contended that the service of notice on 05.0g .zozl, together with the petitioner's family's consistent involvement in the criminal proceedings, demonstrates that their later claim of having "abSolutely no knowledge" of the pending crime is false. It is alleged that by denying knowledge of FIR No. 569 of 2ozl before both the passporr

wp_32058_2025 NB(, J

authorities and this Court, the^{petitionerand his father have committed} perjury by "swearing to wrong affidavit and making^{wrong statements on} oath." She further submits that the Women^{Police Station completedits} investigation and filed a chargesheet before^{the Hon'ble XIII Additional} Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,^{Hyderabad, wherein the} petitioner was explicitly shown as absconding,^{leading to the issuanceof a} Look Out Circular (LOC) on^{28.08.2021.This chargesheet was taken on file} as C.C. No. 2901 of 2022, and the trial court^{simultaneously issued a Non-} Bailable Warrant CNBW) against the^petitioner.

¶70

2.2 It is fuither contended that the^{petitioner'sfather (GPA holder)} and the petitioner's mother appeared^{before the trial court through counsel} but thereafter remained continuously absent,^{prompting the trial courtto} issue Non-Bailable Warrants against both^{of them on 18.06.2025.Itis stated} that NBWs remain pending not only against^{the petitioner but also against} both parents, and that the LOC issued on^{28.08.2021 likewiseremains in} force. She argues that these details,^{together with the family'sexplicit} receipt of notices and summons, demonstrate^{that the petitioner's assertion} of ignorance in communications such^{as his emails to the passportauthority} dated 2l .08.2025, 22.08.2025,²³ .08.2025,and^{1 0. lO.2O25 is incorrect.}

¶71

2.3 It is alleged that the petitioner submitted^{"wrong information"} to the passport officials when he declared^{that there were no pending cases} "to the best of his knowledge," even though^{his parents had received the} notice in criminal proceedings on 05.08.2021^{and were later awareof the} NBW and summons from the trial^{court.It is alleged that the petitioneralso} withheld from this Court the existence^{of the LOCand the pending warrants,} thereby approaching the Court with^{unclean hands.}

\ \

e,i.

wp_32058_2025 NBK, J

2.4 It is fuither contended that the^judgment in Sannith^Reddy Mandhadi (supra), does not assist the^petitioner as he is not only involved in criminal case but also suppressed material facts such as warrants^and LOC. It is also contended that the petitioner and his^parents are also facing a separate Domestic Violence case, filed by the 6th respondent through^the Protection Officer, which the petitioner has suppressed in this writ^petition.

¶77

2.5 The 6th respondent further contends that due to harassment inflicted upon her by the petitioner, she obtained a restraining order from the Court in New Hampshire, USA, which she later withdrew only after repeated assurances from the petitioner and his parents that he would change his behaviour and cease emotional, verbal, mental, and physicalharassment. It is stated that after withdrawing this order in good faith, the petitioner resumed harassment, which ultimately led to her complaint in tndia.

¶78

2.6 It is contended that the renewal of a passport cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a litigant who is evading lawful criminal process, against whom a LOC and NBWs are in force, and who has misrepresented the facts, and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶79

Heard Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. t,akshmikanth, learned counsel on record for the petitioner; Mr. B. Jithender, leamed Standing Counsel for the Central Government representing respondents No.l to 4; and Mr. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶80

Learned Senior Counsel, while making his submissions in line with the writ affidavit, would essentially contend that pendency of criminal proceedj,ngs cannot be a ground for delaying or denying the renewal of the

,47,,

wp_32058_2025 NB(, J

passport, and that it is seftled law that obtaining of passport by a citizen is his right, that cannot be curtailed. It is also^{contended that the petitioneris} an Indian national and is now in USA and his^{passport is} expiring^{today, and} he had made application for renewal of his passport well in^{advance before} the validity expires, and unless his passport is^renewed, he^{would be} deprived of a legally valid Indian Passport, his residency and^employment status in USA would be^jeopardised. It is also contended^{that the petitioner} is seeking renewal of his passport so that his^{passport becomesvalidand he} can travel to India, and therefore there is no^point in the^{contentionbeing} canvassed by the respondents that the^{petitioner'spassportcannotbe} renewed due to criminal proceedings, as, essentially the^{petitionerrequires} his passport even for travelling to India. Learned Senior Counsel^{rebuts the} contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central^{Govemment that} an Emergency Certificate would be issued if required to^{the petitioner.} Learned Senior Counsel contends that the^{petitioner's passportwas not} impounded, to give rise to the contention of^an Emergency^{Certificate,and} fuither Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is not^{applicable to the case of} the petitioner, and therefore the^{petitioner's right to get his passportrenewed} cannot be curtailed, and no altemative^{documentsin lieu of the renewed} passport can be issued at the discretion of the respondent authorities. Leamed Senior Counsel would also^{contend that the petitioner is not} denying the pending criminal^{proceedings,and the petitioner being residing} in a foreign country and employed there, and the^{criminalproceedingsin} India essentially emanating from^{a matrimonial dispute cannot be made to} come in the way of renewal of his^{passport, and evenas per} the settled^[aw, pending criminal proceedings does not bar a person from obtaining or renewing Indian passport, and therefore the respondent-authorities may be

\ \

Bd.

wp_32058_2025 NB( J

directed to renew the Indian passport of the petitioner forthwith without further delay.

¶92

Per contra, leamed Standing Counsel for the Central Government, based on instructions, and the learned counsel for respondent No.6, based on'the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, would essentially contend that the petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 2901 of 2022, and the petitioner, and also his parents have knowledge of the pending criminal proceedings in India, and the parents of the petitioner have initially attended the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner, however, later on discontinued to aftend, and the trial Coun issued NBWs against the petitioner; and these facts have emerged in the enquiry during the passport renewal process and the petitioner have not disclosed them while making the application for renewal, and therefore this amounts to misrepresentation and suppression of facts and therefore the writ petition may be dismissed

¶93

Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner has submitted his passport renewal application on I 6.08.2025, duly acknowledged on 19.08.2025 with ARN 252OO4 104432, and that despite complying with all requirements-including responding to emails dated 21.08.2025, 22.08.2025, 23.08.2025, 09.09.2025, and 10.10.2025-his application was kept pending indefinitely. Significantly, the respondent themselves admit that the application was received and that the petitioner furnished an explanation on 10.10.2025 regarding Crime No.569/2021 (C.C. No.290112022), yet no material has been produced to show that the authorities either rejected the application under any provision of the Passports Act, 1967, or afforded the petitioner an opportunity of' hearing before withholding the renewal. Further, the

wp_32058-202S NB(, J

respondent does not dispute the petitioner's contention that no notice under Section l0(3) or 10(5) of the Passports Act was issued, nor the passport authority complied with the mandatory requirement of recording reasons in writing before withholding a passport.

¶99

6.1 Furthermore, although the respondent alleges that the petitioner and his father had knowledge of the criminal case due to purported service of a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice on 05.08.2021, she simultaneously admits that the Look-Out Circular (LOC) was issued only on 28.08.2021and that the Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued much later, on 18.06.2025.

¶100

6.2 It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to deny or indefinitely withhold passport facilities, particularly in the absence of a specific order under Section l0 of the Passports Act. The ratio of the case in W.P.No.2422 of 2024 applies to the facts of the present case, and it is clear that unless the competent authority forms an independent opinion supported by reasons, the right to hold and renew a passport, being an extension of the right to travel under Article 2 t, cannot be curtailed. Even assuming the allegations against the petitioner to be true, they do not obviate the statutory obligation of the passport authority to issue notice, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order under Section 10. The respondent has not cited any authority permitting the State to keep a passport renewal application "in abeyance" without following due process; and more importantly when the petitioner is in a foreign country with the only document to identify his nationality being a valid passport. Substantively, the mere pendency of criminal proceedings (in C.C. No. 2901 of 2022), without a judicial order restraining the renewal of the passport, cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing or stalling a

wp_32058_2025 NBK, J

passport renewal. In view of the foregoing, the impugned inaction of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in delaying to renew the passport of the petitioner is unsustainable in [aw.

¶105

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the lst respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶106

SD/.K.MADHAVI ASSISTANT

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,