Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/30543/2025 of Krishna Veni Kandrakota, Vs UNION OF INDIA on 11 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 3459 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.30543 OF 2025 Between: Krishna Veni Kandrakota, W/o. Paravastu Dasaradhi Kandrakota,
APHC010591112025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.30543 OF 2025
Between:
Krishna Veni Kandrakota,
W/o. Paravastu Dasaradhi Kandrakota,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o.H.No.6-296/1, Near Satya Sai School, Bheem Reddy Nagar, Ravulapalem Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District (Erstwhile East Godavari District)-533238.
---
Petitioner
and
The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi,
and another.
---
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu
Counsel for the Respondents : Y.V. Anil Kumar (Central Government Counsel)
The Court made the following:
JS,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: <…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the respondents in not renewing the Passport on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of Passport and pass …=
2. Heard Smt. Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents.
3. The petitioner is the holder of Passport No.N9544074, which expires on 26.06.2026. On 14.10.2025, the petitioner has made an application for renewal of her passport under Tatkal scheme vide Reference No.25-1063420910 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not renewed the petitioner?s passport due to an adverse police verification report stating that she is involved in Crime No.230 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 85 and 79 R/w. Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate.
JS,J
4. The petitioner along with 2 others has filed Criminal Petition No.5267 of 2025 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.230 of 2025, registered on the file of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, pending against them. On 07.05.2025, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the aforesaid Crime.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar to renew/reissue passport to the petitioner and in support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order, dated 26.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18328 of 2024.
6. At the hearing, Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that Crime No.230 of 2025, registered on the file of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, is pending against the petitioner.
7. A 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
JS,J
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 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.=
8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the 2nd respondent to renew/reissue the passport of the petitioner, forthwith, pursuant to his Application vide File No.VS4069446449516, dated 14.10.2025, and Application Reference No.25-1063420910, without reference to pendency of Crime No.230 of 2025 on the file of P.M. Palem Police station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate.
9. However, this order will not preclude the Station House Officer, P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate from taking necessary steps to ensure the presence of the petitioner for the conduct of investigation related to the aforesaid Crime or for any other purpose. No order as to costs.
JS,J
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:12.11.2025 DSH