APHC010545562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28209/2025 Between: 1. JYOTHULA NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O VENAKTA APPA RAO @ NEHRU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC TDP KAKINADA PRESIDENT R/O H.NO.1-19, JAGGAMPETA MNADALAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA - 520010, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the petitioners passport pursuant to application Ref. No. VS1074056876922, on the ground of pendency of S.C./S.T. S.C. No. 102 of 2021, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the Respondents to 2 JS,J W.P.No.28209/2025 release the petitioners passport presently retained in their custody and issue the same forthwith for the purpose of travel and Pass IA 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the withhold passport bearing No. V7821254 of the petitioner and grant permission to give declaration before this Hon’ble court to Travel Aboard Forthwith and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHASKAR PREM KOUSHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. M UMADEVI The Court made the following: 3 JS,J W.P.No.28209/2025 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.3. 2. On 22.03.2022 the petitioner has applied for renewal of his passport, vide Reference No.VS1074056876922, dated 22.03.2022. On receipt of letter dated 2.07.2022, the petitioner has appeared before the passport authorities and submitted the relevant documents for verification. Further, the Special Judge For Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram has acquitted the petitioner on 16.12.2022. 3. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Home Department representing respondent No.3, submits that 1) Crime No.73 of 2023 in C.C.No.1609 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada 2) Crime No.106 of 2023 in STC.No.84 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Peddapuram 3) Crime No.30 of 2020 in C.C.No.101 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram 4) Crime No.29 of 2020 in C.C.No.92 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram and 5) Crime No.160 of 2021 in C.C.No.421 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, in all the cases charge sheet are filed. 4 JS,J W.P.No.28209/2025 4. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: 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. 5. In the case on hand, the Criminal Courts have taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the criminal Courts have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Courts and make an appropriate application. 6. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Courts, has straightaway approached this Court. The petitioner was expected to submit his explanation. This Court does not find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 5 JS,J W.P.No.28209/2025 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned. 7. Given the facts and circumstances, of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed off, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional criminal Court and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional Court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 04.11.2025 SR 6 JS,J W.P.No.28209/2025 178 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28209/2025 Date: 04.11.2025 SR