Mere Pendency of Criminal Case No Bar for Passport Renewal: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates: Passport Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Pending FIR Unless Criminal Court Has Taken Cognizance
In a significant judgment dated 04.06.2026 in Writ Petition No. 14854 of 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Subba Reddy Satti, held that the mere pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not a ground to refuse issuance or renewal of a passport when no criminal court has taken cognizance of the offence.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner applied for issuance of a passport before the Regional Passport Office, Visakhapatnam. During police verification, an adverse report was submitted citing the petitioner's involvement in Crime No. 575 of 2025 registered at Patamata Police Station, NTR Commissionerate. Consequently, a shortfall notice dated 15.05.2026 was issued seeking clarification.
The State informed the Court that although the crime was pending investigation, no final report/charge-sheet had yet been filed before the competent court and no cognizance had been taken by any criminal court.
Court's Findings
The High Court relied upon the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 383 of 2024, which held that proceedings can be said to be pending before a criminal court only when the court has taken cognizance and initiated proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mere registration of an FIR or filing of a charge-sheet without cognizance does not attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
The Court further emphasized that:
- Every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Mere pendency of a criminal case does not extinguish fundamental rights.
- The right to travel abroad forms part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The Court referred to:
- Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Presumption of innocence and protection of personal liberty.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – Right to travel abroad as part of Article 21.
- Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India – Reaffirmation of the right to travel abroad.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition at the admission stage, the High Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's passport application strictly in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980, without reference to the pending crime number, and to process the application expeditiously.
Legal Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that:
An FIR or pending investigation alone cannot be treated as "criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court" under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. Unless cognizance is taken by a competent court, passport authorities cannot deny or withhold issuance/renewal of a passport merely on the basis of a pending criminal case.
Case: W.P. No. 14854 of 2026
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Decision Date: 04 June 2026
Keywords: Passport Renewal, Pending FIR, Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act, Cognizance, Right to Travel Abroad, Article 21, Criminal Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Find Judgement
Citation
APHC010315792025
https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/358
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!