The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the may be circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court pleased lo issue an appropriate Writ, Order.or Direction more particularly one in ihe nature of Writ of Mrndrrr. declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in ,"i""ti"g ihu poti"" ctearanie certificate uide file No. HY3086916359924, dated zifi zbzq, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction' . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the Police Clearance Certificate to the Petitioner vide file No. HY3086916359924, without referring to criminal cases as state supra, in the interests of justice, pending disposal of the rnain writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. SADATH HUSSAIN Counsel foithe Responclent No.1 & 2: SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 8: SRI M. SRINIVAS, ASST. Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HON'BLE WSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA WRIT PETITI ON No.1O8 3 0F 2025 MD. Sadath Hussain, learned counsel for the p€titioner' Mr- Angothu Nehru, the Iearned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos- 1 and 2' Mr- M. Srininvas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Home for the respondent Nos-4 to 8 ORDER: The writ petition has been hled for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.2/The Regional Passport Ofhcer in rejecting the Police Clearance Certihcate Application of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for issuance of Police Clearance Certificate to the petrtioner. 'The petitioner is the first accused iu CC No'195O of 2- 2O19, registered for the offences under sectioas 498 (A) and 4fl6 ofthe Indian Penal code, 1860 (I'P'C') & sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D'P' Act) pending before XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate' Nampally' C.C.No.3O of 2Cl22 registered for the offences under sections 498(Al, 4O6 and 5O6 of the I'P'C and Sections 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act pending before XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, and C'C'No'11694 of 2O21 tegistered for the offences under sections 354 and 5O4 read with 34 of 2 the I.P.C. pending before XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally."

3. Learnerl counsel appearing for the petitioner state d in his affidavit at peLragraph 7 that the petitioner has been sekrcted for the post of f)octor in a Government Hospital rnanagec. by the Ministry of H,:aith, Kuwait, and that they have issued a Visa to him, with the final date to report being 12.O2.2O)5. Counsel subrnits that the fundamental rights of the petitioner cannot be curtailed by the adverse police report and the consequent. refusal on the part of the respondent-p,a55ie1 authorities to issue Police Clearance Certificate 1ty reason of the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ,1t Hyderabad. Counsel sub:rits that the petitioner is rearlv to give an undertaking t-hat the petitioner would continLre to cooperate with the inves.tigation and will appear virtually trelore the Court for that purpose.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the passport authorities submits that the petitioner failed to state the fact of the pendency of the criminal proceedings in the corLcerned declaration/ lorm by reason of which the petitioner's passport was extended till 28.02.2034. Counsel submits that the 3 Regional Passport Authority has no power to issue a Police Clearance Certihcate in the face of an adverse police report issued by the police authorities Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, : this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first approach the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief where the criminal proceedings are pending. The worth of the undertaking which the petitioner offers to give has to be seen against the practicaliry of the situation. The petitioner seeks to leave the country for an employment opportunity in Kuwait- The practicality of virtual appearances is a factor which the jurisdictional Court must take into consideration and decide.

6. The reliance placed on the judgment of a Singie Bench of the Delhi High Court in Amordeep Singh Bedi u. Union of Indial does not assist the case of the petitioner since the offence in that case was under The trmployees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 and particularly since the petitioner had fulhlled his liability under the said Act by making the required Provident Fund deposits. The decision further records that the petitioner had been granted Anticipatory Bail with the sole condition that the petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the I 2024 SCC Online Del Tolg 4 investigating ofhcer and that no restriction has; been imposed by - the Trial Court on the petitioner,s travel. These are vital factual differences between the present case and Amardeep Sit tgh Bedi,s case (suprar. Moreover, the petitioner in that case had also approacherl the Trial Court for relief before filing the proceedings before the Trial Court.

7. This Court is not inclined to go into the rnerits of the rival contentions or the legalit5r of the prayers in the writ petition since that may prejudice the Trial Court il and nhen the petitioner al)proaches the Court for appropriate directions. Since learned counsel appearing for the petitior-ler subrnils that the petitioner's Visa will remain valid till 12.O2.2C.t25, the petitioner is granted libert5r to seek appropriare directions for expeditious clisposal. The Trial Court shall make an effort to dispose of tlre. case by O2.O2.2025.

8. W.P.No 1O83 of 2O2S is disposed of in rerms of tht: above. Needless to sety, the Court at Hyderabad shall not be infiuenced by this order and shall decide the application. if filed bv the petitioner, on a clean slate.

9. Interim orders, if any, shall stand va.cated and all connected app,lications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 SD/. N. RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NOTE: That the 2nd paragraph of the Order dated 10.01.2025 in WP No.1083 of 2025 is deleted & substituted as follows "2. The Petitioner is the first accused in CC No.1960 of 2019 registered for the offences under sections 498 (A) and 406 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (l.P.C.) & sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. AcQ pending before XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, C.C. No.30 of 2022 registered for the offences under sections 498 (A)' 406 and 566 of the l.P.C and sections 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act pending before XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, and C.C. No.11694 ot 2021 registered for the offences under sections 354 and 504 read with 34 of the LP.C. pending before XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally" as per the Orders of Hon'ble Court dated 24.01.2025 in lA No.2 o'f 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on '10.01 .2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. RAJAGOPAL NT REGISTRAR ASS SECTION OFFICER To, Government of lndia, New Delhi.

1. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' 2. The Secretary Ministry of Exteinal affairs, Union of lndia, Patiala House, g. ine Regional Passp6rt Officer, Passport Seva Kendra, B-1-3-05/306, Anand silicon ciip, Shaikpet Nala, Tolichowki, Hyderabad-500009, Telangana. 4. The Principal Secietary, Home Department, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. S. tfre Director General of Police, Saifabad' Lakdikapul' Hyderabad. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 7. fne Station House officer, Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, 8. T6e Station House officer, Women Police Station, Charminar, Hyderabad . g. rn" Siiii"" House officer, Golconda Police Station, Golconda, Hyderabad' 10.One CC to SRI MD. SADATH HUSSAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, Advocate [OPUC] 12.fwo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' [oU I ] 13.Two CD Copies ^BNd aNl HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 24t01t2025 CC TODAY AMENDED ORDER WP.No.1083 of 2O2S -i::-, ,,-. uri l)," 5 --)) O6 lIl{H 2E '". 'i) (i rr., i i.,li:? ( f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?"1