MADALA JAGAN MOHAN RAO v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4th respondent, and perused the material available on record

The petitioner's case, in brief, is that the petitioner has approached the 3rd respondent and made an application vide File No.VJ2075473176425 dated 18.08.2025 for issuance of passport. The 3rd respondent refused to issue the passport on the ground that Crime No.565 of 2022 on the file of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, is pending against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final report has not yet been filed before the jurisdictional Court and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid reason to deny the issuance of a passport.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.565 of 2022 for the offences under section 420, 470, 471, 506 r/w 120 B I.P.C of Gannavaram Urban Police Station.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a similar question has fallen for consideration before this Court, A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024 by an order dated 29.10.2024 directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner without further delay. In paras 16 and 17 of its order, the Division Bench observed as under: “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 have taken 4 cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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.”

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner and non filing of a final report. Further, unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for issuing passport.