APHC010077632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4186/2025 Between: Nethini Jagga Rao ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ENKEKALUVA ANJANA REDDY(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri J.Subbarao, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kesavi Kumari, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of 2nd respondent in not renewing the petitioner‟s passport bearing No.M8227290, due to pendency of C.C.No.1063 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam and further insisting NOC from 3rd respondent or any order from the competent court, as illegal and arbitrary. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the issuance of a passport and a passport was issued for ten (10) years vide No.M8227290. The passport was issued on 13.07.2005 and thereafter, it was renewed/reissued for ten (10) years, and the same was going to expire on 19.04.2025. The petitioner made an application vide no.VS1086875693324 to the 2nd respondent on 23.04.2024 for renewal of his passport. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 31.05.2024 was issued due to an adverse police verification report. Thereafter, a reminder was issued to the petitioner on 13.11.2024. Learned counsel would also submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to protract the renewal of the passport. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the criminal case against the petitioner vide C.C.No.1063/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, is pending for trial. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Hence, the petitioner has to make an application before the jurisdictional Court. 5. When a criminal case is pending against an applicant and the Court has taken cognizance, the applicant has to necessarily approach the jurisdictional Court. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against the individual and taking cognizance by the Magistrate and 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. 3 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.” 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will make an application before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam where C.C.No.1063/2022 is pending and make an application. Upon making such application, the learned Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders regarding renewal/reissuing passport to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, strictly as per the provisions of the Passport Act and the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 07.04.2025 KA 4 123 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4186/2025 Date: 07.04.2025 KA