APHC010502042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26295/2025 Between: 1. NURUKURTHI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O.N.VEERANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-31/4, FCI COLONY, NEAR SAL BABA TENNPLE, VALASAPAKA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS), SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPARTMETHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, NEAR P.F OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM, VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 to issue a writ, order more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application No.VS5075263127825 dated 01.07.2025 on the ground of pending criminal case against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and against the Passports Act, 1967 and against the orders passed by this Hon’ble court in W.P.No.6651 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the application No.VS5075263127825 dated 01.07.2025 of the petitioner and issue passport to him and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.3 to consider the petitioners application No.VS5075263127825 dated 01.07.2025 for issuance of a passport without referring to the criminal case pending against him and pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead The Station House officer, Sarpavaram Police station, Kakinada District as respondent No.4 in W.P.No.26295/2025 and in I.A.No.1/2025 in W.P.No.26295/2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVITEJA JAMMALAMADAKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. NARASIMHARAO GUDISEVA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri J.Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Valasapaka, Kakinada District. On 01.07.2025, the petitioner applied for a passport. On 04.09.2025, the 3rd respondent, vide Ref. No. SCN/10500001004/25 submitted a report stating that the petitioner was shown as accused No. 1 in Cr. No.243 of 2024 at Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police have completed the investigation and the final report has been filed, but cognizance has not yet been taken, and argues that in similar circumstances, this Court in para No.14, in W.A.No.383 of 2024, held that: 14. The Apex Court further held that <initiation of proceedings= dealt with under Chapter XIV were different from <commencement of proceedings= covered by Chapter XVI and that for commencement of proceedings, there must be initiation of proceedings. For facility of reference paragraph 24 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: <24. From the above scheme of the Code, in our judgment, it is clear that <Initiation of Proceedings=, dealt with in Chapter XIV, is different from <Commencement of Proceedings= covered by Chapter XVI. For commencement of proceedings, there must be initiation of proceedings. In other words, initiation of proceedings must precede commencement of proceedings. Without initiation of proceedings under Chapter XIV, there cannot be commencement of proceedings before a Magistrate under Chapter XVI. The High Court, in our considered view, was not right in equating initiation of proceedings under Chapter XIV with commencement of proceedings under Chapter XVI.= 15. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment was followed subsequently in Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. 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.= 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed before the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakinada on 02.05.2025, but the same is pending for cognizance. 5. 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. A bare reading of the Passport act, 1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for issuance of passport. As per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere pendency of crime cannot be a reason to refuse to grant passport and cognizance is yet to be taken. 7. Taking into consideration of the submissions of both the learned counsel, and the Judgments referred supra, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction: The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s passport application bearing No.VS5075263127825 dated 01.07.2025, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, regardless pending Crime No.243 of 2024 registered against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 16.10.2025 M K K