APHC010045302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2644/2025 Between: S Niranjan Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Phani Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B. Surya Narayana, learned counsel or respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondents 4 and 5. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not renewing/reissuing passport bearing No.K9198017, in pursuance of his application No.VJ1077234593324, due to the pendency of C.C.No.216 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class – Special Mobile Court, Chittoor, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioner was issued with a passport and the same was expired. Hence, the petitioner made application No.VJ8073749880721 for reissuance / renewal of passport. Due to the adverse Police Verification Report, respondent No.3 issued notice dated 28.06.2022 (Ex.P2), seeking clarification. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 20.03.2024 (Ex.P3), intimating the petitioner that in the absence of any response from him, his application will be closed. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner made another application vide No. VJ1077234593324, for renewal of the passport. The said application was kept on hold, as per the online track (Ex.P5), directing the petitioner to furnish acquittal order from the Court and also to correct the spouse’s name. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is no ground to keep the application in hold, without processing. He would also submit that right to travel is a fundamental right. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has to make an application before the jurisdictional criminal Court. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would also submit that another objection is regarding correction of the name of the petitioner’s wife and the same is to be corrected. 7. Thus, in pursuance of crime No.14 of 2013 on the file of learned II Town Police Station, Chittoor, registered against the petitioner, the police filed charge sheet, and the same was numbered C.C. 216 of 2015 and the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance. 8. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024, while considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against individual and also taking cognizance by the Magistrate, 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. 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.” 9. In the case at hand, the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance in the criminal case against the petitioner; the petitioner has to make an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 10. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, 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, learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is also at liberty to submit explanation to the authorities, regarding the correction of his wife’s name. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.03.2025 IKN 135 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2644 of 2025 Date : 24.03.2025 ikn