WP/19290/2026 of Modugula Venugopala Reddy Vs The Union of India on 15 July 2026

ORDER:

To declare the action of 3rd respondent in issuing the show cause notices bearing letter Ref.Nos.SCN/1054874555/26 dated 06.05.2026 and SCN/1055048162/26 dated 18.05.2026, on the ground of registration of criminal case against him, without examining his case as contemplated under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, and withholding the application for reissuance of passport of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mallampati Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that charge sheet is yet to be filed and mere registration of Crime would not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings before a Criminal Court. Unless a Criminal Proceedings are pending before a Criminal Court as envisaged under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authorities cannot deny renewal of the passport. Thus, the action of the passport authorities is not justified. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Central Government counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the adverse police verification the authorities declined to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for reissuance of his passport and issued show cause notices. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

5. Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 is germane and the same is extracted hereunder: 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; (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 Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has categorically held that, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India.

8. In view of the observations held above, unless charge sheet is filed and the same is taken cognizance of by the concerned committal Court, mere registration of a crime would not amount to pendency of criminal proceeding, which empowers the passport authorities to withhold issuance or renewal of passport. In the instant case, the submissions made by both the learned counsel would indicate that charge sheet is yet to be filed. Thus, Section 6(2)(f) would not attract to the facts of the case.

9. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the authorities to reissue the passport to the petitioner, if it meets all the necessary requirements, other than the objection regarding pendency of crime.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 16th July, 2026

RKS