10 r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) to.-. MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH lx TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Vl PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6275 OF 2025 Between: B. Pavan Kumar, S/o. B.Ramachandra Reddy Aged about 25 years, R/o. D.No.6-91, Papi Reddy Palli Village, Nandanoor, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, CTV Division, TV1 Section, Patiala House, Annexe, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pass Port Office, 4th floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet M.G. Road, Vijayawada. 4. The Station House Officer, Gangadhara Nellore Police Station, Chittoor District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order, direction, writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring impugned order 3rd Respondent in rejecting the passport application No.VJ8063812554921 on the ground may that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner as per the police verification report as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of .Articie 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act, 1967 and further direct the 3rd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner forthwith without reference Crime No.119 of 202lon the file of G.D.Nellore Police Station, Chittoor District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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.VJ806381255492021 filed on 09.12.2021 of the petitioner without reference Crime No.119 of 202lon the file of G.D.Nellore Chittoor District forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3: THENEPALLI NIRANJAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010118622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6275/2025 Between: B. Pavan Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.YMAHALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ."ORDER:: Heard Smt. Y. Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sri T. Niranjan, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondents 2 and 4. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not issuing passport, in pursuance of the petitioner’s application No.\^J8063812554921, due to the pendency of the criminal case, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioner made application for issuance of passport vide application No. VJ8063812554921 dated 17.12.2021. Due to adverse Police verification Report, respondent No.3 issued calling for the petitioner’s explanation. However, a notice dated 11.02.2022 (Ex.P1) the petitioner did not submit 06.04.2022 (Ex.PS) not submitted any explanation. The a Police Verification Report, obtained from Secretariat (Ex.PS), in February, 2025, almost after 32 months. any explanation. Thereafter, another notice dated issued, for which also, petitioner had was petitioner submitted Village 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that crime against the petitioner does not bar respondent No.3 issue passport. mere pendency of - to process and 5. Sri Niranjan, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 3 as well for respondents case registered charge sheet before the same is numbered as C.C.No.495 of 2022 the file of learned JFMC -cum - Special Mobile Court, Chittoor District. as Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 2 and 4 would submit that, in pursuance of the criminal against the petitioner (Ex.P6), the Police filed jurisdictional Magistrate and the on 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Court has taken cognizance of the 01.04.2025. would further submit that the criminal case and it stands posted to 7. Thus, there is no dispute that i , in pursuance of crime No.119 of 2021, registered against the petitioner, the police filed charge sheet which numbered as C.C. 495 of 2022 and the jurisdictional Couri has taken was cognizance. 8. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 i W.A.No.383 of 2024, while considering Section proceedings pending against individual and also Magistrate, observed as under; in 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial taking cognizance by the “16. Considering the facts of the principles laid down i present case on the touchstone of the 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. 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.” In the case at hand, since the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the criminal case, the petitioner has to make an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. 10. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioner to make application before jurisdictional Court regarding issuance of passport. If the petitioner makes such an application, learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/~ N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, TV1 Section, Patiala House, Annexe, Government of India 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District. CTV Division, , New Delhi. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pass Port Office, 4th floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet M.G. Road, Vijayawada. 4. The Station House Officer, Gangadhara Nellore Police Station, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to M/s Y Maha Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Thenepalli Niranjan Central Government Counsel [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] r 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6275 of 2025 i 0! APR 2025 •S'j Current is^tion ^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS