APHC010670912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34640/2025 Between: 1. PEDDISETTY KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, MALE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. 13-127, TAILORS COLONY, KOTHAPETA (RURAL), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, CHIRALA, BAPATIA DISTRICT ...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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting for renewal of passport with file no. VJ2075746089125 dated 11.11.2025 by orders dated 14.11.2025 with the reason the petitioner involved in criminal case by directing to get the proof of clearance of criminal case is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discriminating and unjust against to Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and against to the rules of Passport Act and consequent to direct the 2nd respondent to renew the passport by 2 JS,J W.P.No.34640/2025 considering the application dated 12.09.2025 afresh as per order in W.P.No. 10459 of 2024 on the file of this Honble Court 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 2nd respondent to process the renewal of passport with application file no. VJ2075746089125 dated 11.11.2025 afresh as per order in W.P.No. 10459 of 2024 on the file of this Honble Court before the authority within specified period pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIRAM JASWANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU CENTRAL GOVT.COUNSEL The Court made the following: 3 JS,J W.P.No.34640/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Siram Jaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner made an application vide Application Reference No.25- 1060904270 and File No.VJ2075746089125, dated 11.11.2025, seeking to issue fresh passport to the petitioner. Pursuant to his application, the respondent authorities have not processed his application due to the submission of an adverse verification report by the Police i.e., his involvement in Crime No.280 of 2021 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Chirala, Bapatla District. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal case is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order, dated 26.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18328 of 2024. 4. At the hearing, Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Central Government Counsel, submits that the concerned Police with regard to Crime No.280 of 2021 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Chirala, Bapatla District filed charge sheet vide CC No.307 of 2024 on the file of the AJCJ Court, Chirala. Since the competent criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024, has considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-à-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, 4 JS,J W.P.No.34640/2025 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.= 6. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court, has straightaway approached this Court. 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 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 of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional 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, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 31.12.2025 RSD 5 JS,J W.P.No.34640/2025 74 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34640/2025 Dated: 31.12.2025 RSD