APHC010171752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9387/2025 Between: Devidraju Avanigadda ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri M.Sapthagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Niranjan, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing a passport to the petitioner, in pursuance of an application No.MA 1065203270923 dated 24.03.2023, due to the pendency of criminal case vide C.C.No.819 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, Prakasam District, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made application No.MA 1065203270923 dated 24.03.2023 to the 2nd respondent 2 under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. Learned counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent did not issue a passport due to the pendency of C.C.No.819 of 2019, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4. 4. Sri T.Niranjan, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, would contend that the jurisdictional court has taken cognisance and the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional court and make an application. Learned counsel would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024. 5. Thus, as seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioner made an application vide No.MA 1065203270923 dated 24.03.2023 seeking to issue a passport. In the affidavit, it was also stated that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4 in C.C.No.819 of 2019 arising out of Crime No.107 of 2019 on the file of Chirala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. The case status filed, Ex.P.1, would reflect that the calendar case is coming up for trial. 6. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against an individual vis-a-vis, taking cognisance by the Magistrate observed as under: “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 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.” 3 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will make an application before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, Prakasam District where C.C.No.819/2019 is pending to make an application. Upon making such an application, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders regarding renewal/issuing passport to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, strictly as per the provisions of the Passport Act and the Rules made thereunder. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that despite the order passed by the jurisdictional courts to issue a passport, since normally the period is not being mentioned, the authorities are issuing a passport for one year only. Hence, the learned Magistrate shall pass orders keeping in view Rule 12 of the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 16.04.2025 KA 4 67 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9387/2025 Date: 16.04.2025 KA