1 APHC010645812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33496/2025 Between: 1. JAGADEESWARA REDDY BOMMIREDDY, S/O. MAHANANDI REDDY BOMMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 13/882-10-A, NETAJI NAGAR, OPP. FC RIEE GODOWN, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27- 37-158, GOVERNORPET, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADIPATRI TOWN POLICE STATION, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPUR 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the passport to the petitioner in pursuant to his application in file No. No.VJ1073058451520, dated 16.10.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, high-handed and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India apart from the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents to issue the same forthwith 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K.Naga Phanindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent, and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent and made an application vide File No.VJ1073058451520 dated 16.10.2020 for issuance of passport. 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.124 of 2019, Crime No.93 of 2020, Crime No.530 of 2021, Crime No.90 of 2024, Crime No.92 of 2024, Crime No.94 of 2024, Crime No.95 of 2024 and Crime No.97 of 2024 of Tadipatri Town Police Station. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and further submit that, A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, 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, 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.” 4 4. Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that cognizance was taken in Crime No.124 of 2019 and Crime No.530 of 2021 and charge sheets were filed vide Calendar Case No.314 of 2019 and Calendar Case No.669 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, respectively and other crimes are still pending in FIR stage. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and file an appropriate application for issuance of the passport. 6. In the case on hand, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the Criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application. 7. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court, 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned and file appropriate applications. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) the petitioner is given liberty to approach the learned jurisdictional Court and make appropriate applications in CC.No.314 of 2019 and CC No.669 of 2023, pending on the file of 5 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri. Upon making such applications, the learned jurisdictional Court concerned shall pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. (ii) Insofar as the Crime No.93 of 2020, Crime No.90 of 2024, Crime No.92 of 2024, Crime No.94 of 2024, Crime No.95 of 2024 and Crime No.97 of 2024 of Tadipatri Town Police Station are concerned, as the same were not taken on file by the jurisdictional Court, the 2nd respondent shall renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner. (iii) If the petitioner intends to go abroad, the petitioner shall necessarily get permission from the jurisdictional Courts. The petitioner shall not misuse the travel document. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 9th day of December, 2025. SSA