APHC010712502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 139/2026 Between: 1. KRISHNAVENI AVIREDDY, W/O. ADHINARAYANA AVIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. 58-15-103/SF, FLAT NO. 302 TMR GRANDEUR, SHANTHI NAGAR, NAD, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530009 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110011 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM NEAR P.F OFFICE. BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-530009 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DISHA WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533103 ...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 topleased 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 pursuance to her application in file No.VS1065713239125, dated 06.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, high-handed and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the 2 JS,J W.P.No.139/2026 Constitution of India apart from the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents to issue the same forthwith 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 pleased to direct the Respondents to issue passport to the Petitioner in pursuant to her application in file NO.VS1065713239125, dated 06.11.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NANILU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. 3 JS,J W.P.No.139/2026 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner made an application vide Application No.VS1065713239125, dated 06.11.2025, seeking to issue fresh passport to the petitioner. 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.35 of 2024 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Rajahmundry. Furthermore, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet in Crime No.35 of 2024 vide C.C.No.1768 of 2024 before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and D.V.C.No.53 of 2025 was filed before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. 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 submits that the 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 4 JS,J W.P.No.139/2026 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that cognizance was taken in Crime No.35 of 2024 and charge sheet is filed in Calendar Case No.1768 of 2024 before the concerned Magistrate Court and D.V.C.No.53 of 2025 was also filed before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram in respect of same crime No.35 of 2024. Since the jurisdictional Courts have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the said Courts. 5. The petitioner, without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Courts, 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. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Courts concerned. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional criminal Courts and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional Courts concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 06.01.2026 KAS 5 JS,J W.P.No.139/2026 96 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 139/2026 Date: 06.1.2026 KAS