APHC010175262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9084/2025 Between: Neelam Naga Ayyapa Swamy ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Sridharan Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.3. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in not renewing/reissuing passport bearing No.M7737696, in pursuance of the application F.No.VS4077499027525 (VS4F25423042673), due to the registration of F.I.R. No.40 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections SRS,J W.P.No.9084 of 2025 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioner was issued with a passport on 06.04.2015, for a period of ten years, and the same has expired on 05.04.2025. The petitioner made application on 19.03.2025, under tatkal quota vide F.No. VS4077499027525 (VS4F25423042673), for reissuance/renewal of passport. In Police verification, the petitioner received E-mail vide Ex.P4 intimating the petitioner to get in touch with the respective Police in respect of verification. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to the pendency of a crime No.40 of 2024, the authorities are not renewing the passport. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide Cr.No.124 of 2021, by Bhimavaram Police Station. Police filed final report before the Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, Eluru District and the same is numbered as C.C.No.496 of 2021. The learned Magistrate has taken cognisance. He would submit that another crime was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R.No.40 of 2024 by the Police, Tadepalli Town Police Station. Police filed a charge sheet before AJFCM, Tadepalligudem. However, the Court has not taken cognisance. 6. Thus, a perusal of the pleadings and instructions discloses that there is no dispute regarding registration of the aforementioned crimes against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has not issued the passport to the petitioner due to the pendency of the cases. 7. Section 6 of the Act deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: “6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc. Page 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.9084 of 2025 --- (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - --- (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; --- 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi1 considered regarding the proposition that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another2; and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others3, held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 10. In the case at hand, as stated supra, in pursuance of crime No.124 of 2021, registered against the petitioner, the police filed a charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C. 496 of 2021, and the jurisdictional Court has taken cognisance. In respect of another criminal case, the cognisance has not yet been taken. 11. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No. 383 of 2024 (order dated 29.10.2024), 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: 1 (2013) 15 SCC 570 2 AIR 1978 SC 597 3 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 SRS,J W.P.No.9084 of 2025 “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.” 12. In the case at hand, since the jurisdictional Court has taken cognisance of C.C.No.496 of 2021, the petitioner has to make an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional magistrate and make an appropriate application in C.C.No.496 of 2021. 14. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C.No.496 of 2021, 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, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Respondent No.2, based on the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate in C.C.No.496 of 2021, shall consider the petitioner’s case for renewal of passport, without reference to crime No.40 SRS,J W.P.No.9084 of 2025 of 2024, of Tadepalligudem Police Station, since cognisance has not been taken. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.04.2025 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.9084 of 2025 196 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO:9084 of 2025 Date :08.04.2025 ikn