IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-20988-2026 Date of Decision : July 14, 2026 GURTEJ SINGH -PETITIONER V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the competent authority to renew his passport. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was residing in Italy and had come to India in the year 2014 for solemnization of his marriage with one Kulwinder Kaur, whereafter he returned to Italy. During the petitioner’s stay in Italy, his wife got FIR No.66 dated 17.05.2024 registered against him and his father under Sections 406/498-A of the IPC at Police Station NRI, Mohali. On account of registration of the said FIR, the petitioner’s passport bearing No.N6501641, which was valid up to 04.01.2026 and for renewal whereof an application had been submitted by him on 29.10.2025, was not renewed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to return to India and join the investigation in the FIR to establish his innocence, for which a valid passport is required. It is contended that merely on DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20988-2026 2 account of registration of the FIR, refusal to renew the petitioner’s passport has prevented him from returning to India and participating in the ongoing investigation. It is further submitted that since the final report in the FIR has not yet been presented against the petitioner, rather has been presented only against his co-accused, he is unable to approach the Trial Court for seeking permission to apply for renewal of his passport. 4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, finds no merit therein. The reason for drawing this inference is that the final report qua the co-accused of the petitioner already stands presented before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, there is no impediment for the petitioner to approach the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application seeking permission for renewal of his passport, while specifically disclosing his willingness to return to India and face the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this Court finds that the instant writ petition is misconceived and the yearned-for directions cannot be issued at this stage. 5. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court, either in person or through his duly authorised Special Power of Attorney holder, by filing an appropriate application seeking permission for renewal of his passport. In case such an application is filed within a period of 15 days from today, the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of filing thereof. 6. Disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 14, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment