APHC010202552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10416/2025 Between: Aluri Sreenivasulu, ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P BADRINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri P. Badrinath, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.5. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing the petitioner’s passport on the ground of pendency of DVC No.9 of 2025, on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for renewal of passport vide file number No.25-2001390694 dated 12.03.2025, before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 refused to renew the passport due to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that mere pendency of DVC does not bar the authority from issuing the passport. He would submit that refusal to renew the passport would render the petitioner jobless. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that apart from DVC No.9 of 2025 a criminal case in crime No.206/2024 was registered against the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 85, 79, read with 61(2), 318(3), 351(2) and 174(3) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, on the file of Vijayawada I Town Police Station. He would submit that the charge sheet (final report) was filed on the file of learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada vide C.F. No.640/2025 dated 29.01.2025, and the Court has not assigned any number, so far. 5. Thus, as seen from the material on record, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of a criminal case at the crime stage. The jurisdictional Court has not taken cognizance. 6. 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. --- (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; --- 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi1, observed as follows: “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.” 8. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others2, observed as under: "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against an individual, and also taking cognisance by the Magistrate and 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. 1 2013 (15) SCC Page 570 2 LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048 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. 10. In the case at hand, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Though a final report has been filed, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognizance so far. Mere pendency of a criminal case, given the expressions supra, is not a ground to deny a passport if the application is otherwise in order. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the learned respondent No.2 to renew the petitioner’s passport, in pursuance of the application made vide file number No.25-2001390694 dated 12.03.2025, without reference to crime No.206/2024 of Vijayawada I Town Police Station, within three weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 09.05.2025 IKN 180 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10416 of 2025 Date : 09.05.2025 ikn