APHC010122012026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 265/2026 Between: 1. DUMMU ANIL, S/O SANDHEYYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,R/O D NO 3-142 VTC BANDAMVANIPETA,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 532 406 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Principal Secretaiy,Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased topleased to call for records relating to Crl.MP No. 1813 /2025 in C.C.No. 791/2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division)- CUM- Judicial Magistrate of First class, Srikakulam and modify the order passed in Crl.MP No. 1813 /2025 in C.C.No. 791/2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division)- CUM- Judicial Magistrate of First class, Srikakulam to the extent of renewal of passport of petitioner for a period of 10 years in the place of one year in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 2 pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the order in Crl.MP No. 1813/2025 in C.C.No. 791/2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division)- CUM- Judicial Magistrate of First class, Srikakulam, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 265/2026 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision was filed, seeking to modify the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, in Crl.M.P.No.1813 of 2025 in C.C.No.791 of 2024 to the renewal of passport of petitioner for a period of 10 years in place of one year. 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner herein, who is the Accused No.1 in C.C. No. 791 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, applied for renewal of his passport, which was refused by the passport authorities due to the pendency of the criminal case. Following the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P. No. 24834 of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025 to approach the trial court, he filed Crl.M.P. No. 1813 of 2025, and the trial court permitted renewal of the passport only for one year vide order dated 26.05.2025. Aggrieved by this limited period of renewal, the petitioner filed the present revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is Accused No.1 in C.C. No. 791 of 2024, is facing allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 24834 of 2025, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed him to file an appropriate petition before the Magistrate Court as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules for obtaining permission for renewal of his passport for the normal period. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed the Crl.M.P.No.1813 of 2025 before the Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Judge permitted renewal of the passport only for a period of one year instead of the usual period of ten years. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that by renewing the passport for the normal period of 10 years, the petitioner is not escaping from the jurisdiction of the Court. He can appear as and when required. It is only for renewal of the passport but not permission to leave the country for 10 years. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made, and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the request is only for renewal of the passport for the normal period of ten years. However, the learned Trial Court granted permission for renewal of the passport only for a period of one year, which is not in correct lines. Merely because the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry 5 Prohibition Act, he cannot be deprived of renewal of his passport for the normal period of ten years. 7. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, in Crl.M.P. No. 1813 of 2025 in C.C. No. 791 of 2024 is modified to the extent that the passport authority shall renew the petitioner’s passport bearing No. N7846233, for the normal period of ten years. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026. UPS 6 73 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 265/2026 Dt.07.03.2026 UPS