WP/23199/2026 of Boppana Nagabhushanam Vs UNION OF INDIA on 16 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 22.04.2026 of respondent no.2 in declining to renew his passport on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.365 of 2018 on the file of the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I class for Railways, Guntur.

2. Heard Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Central Government Counsel.

3. Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner filed Crl.Petition No.4954 of 2025 before this Court was pleased to stay appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.365 of 2018 except on dates when his presence is required as directed by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of trial. He would further contend that the petitioner made online application for renewal of his passport and in response he was informed by respondent that they received police verification report about pendency of C.C.No.365 of 2018, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however the respondent no.2 without considering the explanation, directed the petitioner to obtain permission vide Gazette dated 25.03.1993. He would further contend that the RC,J

petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to get his passport renewed due to pendency of criminal case. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Central Government Counsel, on counter submitted that upon receipt of adverse Police Verification Report regarding involvement of the petitioner in C.C.No.365/2018, the authorities had rightly declined to process his application for renewal of passport and the petitioner has to obtain no objection certificate and seek permission to travel abroad from the Court wherein the criminal proceedings are pending. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, which outlines the legal grounds upon which the passport authority must or may refuse to issue a passport, travel document, or make an endorsement for visiting foreign countries, envisages that Section 6(2): Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India., (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; RC,J

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

6. Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned court.

7. In the instant case, charge sheet was filed, the same was taken cognizance of by the concerned Court and was numbered as C.C.No.365 of 2018. The record shows that the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4954 of 2025 for quashment of the said C.C. Admittedly, a coordinate bench of this Court granted stay of appearance alone of the petitioner in the said C.C., except on date when his presence is required, as directed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the petitioner has to obtain no objection certificate from Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class for Railways, Guntur.

RC,J

8. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner filed for re- issuance/renewal of his passport, upon production of no objection certificate from the Court, if otherwise satisfy all the other requirements. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17th September, 2026

RR