The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at I -,,- - 2. Smt. Narni Swarna Latha,, W/o. Murali, Age' - Fi;iti;:409-,-on aloct, iiajay Nivas, Phase-l' Mohan Nagar' Kothapet' Hyderabad, Tehngana-500035' ye.ars' Occ' Business' R/o -5? ..,RESPOM)ENT NO2/DEfACTO COMPLAIT{ANT Petition under Section 528 of ENSS praying that in the circumstancds stated inthe Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may tle- ii""""J t" Quash the orders passed il 91 ry! P No' 342 of 2o25 in C'o No'571 of Sirzi-* tr," fite of the ul Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, R.R.Dist at iavainnaoar viOe dated 0149-2025, and to pais suctr other older or orders which it i" ti.rrt-UL.. ftt in the circumstance of the case in the interest of iustice. t.A. NO: t oF 202s PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatintt}ecircumstances stated inthe Memofandum of Grounds of crirninal Petition, ttE t'ligh c"itT?I b" ['Ii]ir,^"d*-i" lsiue r.roc, against ttre petitioner/A{/Hotdef of the passpoft "r""="atodirecttheVllAddl.JudicialMagistrateofFirtstclass,R.R.Distat pehding trail ln.c'c b"fifu N'o. usrzassz enabiing-him N;.;;i ii zozt on the fite of the v1 Addt. Judiciar Magistrare of First class, Hi.Oi.t at Hayathnagar, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition' -t9 FI9*.hg P:ssport This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionarrduponhearingtheargumenGot Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (fG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .and None appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made tfiG followang: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l2592 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the order dated 01 .09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.342 in CC No.571 ot 2021 by the Vll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District' wherein the petition filed by him seeking permission for renewal of the, passport, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his passport bearing No.N8124597 is issued on29.02.2O16 and is expiring on 28.02-2026 and thus, he sought permission of the court to get his passport renewed and that he filed a petition before the trial court but, the trial court has dismissed the same. He further submifted that the trial court ought to have allowed petition and that unless the permission is given by the court, the passport authorities would not renew his passport by which his rights would be prejudiced. He further submifted that since there is stay of all further proceedings granted a- -r-' 2 EfDJ c.l.P- ilo.725a2 0t 2an5 by this Court vide order dated 11.02 .2025, in this case, the trial court has not lyranted any order with regard to renewal of the passport. He thereforer, prayed to set aside the orders of the trial court.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the stay order is in force and hence, the trial court has righfly dismissed the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The present petition is filed seeking renewal of passport, but this ,3ourt has granted stay of all further proceedings in the case before the trial court vrde order dated 11.07.2o2s. The triar court has observe'J the same and herd that it is not incrined to grant any orders pertainirrg to renewar of the passport and has further herd that passing any order would be contempt of the High Court's orders. However, it has discussed the merits of the petition and has held that Section 6(2)(f) of the passport Act does not apply to the present case as the passport authority neither refused to issue passport nor refused to issue travel documents to the petitioner herein.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the official memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of lndia wherein it is mentioned at point No.2(c) as follows: \ -* ,., J EfO,J Crl.P. No.1E92 o, birs '2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is reproduced below for referen@: GSR 570(E) - ln exercise of the powers confened by clause (a) of Sec{ion 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Govemment of lndia in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E) dated the 14th April 't 976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of lndia against whom proceedings in respect of an offenoe alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in lndia and who produce orders from the court concemed permitting ihem to depart from lndia, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) xxxx (D... . (i0.... (iiD.... (b) xxxx (c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad:"

8. Thus, it is made clear from the official memorandum that when there are criminal proceedings against an individua!, he has to seek permission of the court for renewal of the passport. The petitioner herein has further received a communication from the Regiold Passport Office on 02.09.2025 expressing its objections ,) "r/ 4 EfD,J Crl.P. No.1?!in ol 2025 with reference to the passport application of the petitioner and the authority has observed as follows: "1) Charged with criminal proceeding or any anest waranUsummon pending; The applicant involved in crime number .1030/2019 under Section 42O, 406 tPC CC No.571p021 of p.S. Vanasthalipuram same pending before the Hon,ble Vll AMM Court at Hayathnagar. The originals of such documents need to be carried while visiting passport office through online RPO enquiry token availabb in our website www.oassportindia.qov.in and available offline tokens in RPO, Hyderabad every Thursday 9.30 AM to ,t2.30 pM. lf the service is rendered, please ignore this lefter or please treat this letter as cancelled."

9. Thus, the petitioner herein seeks permission of the Court for renewal of the passport. Therefore, a conjoint perusal of the official tnemorandum of the Government of lndia and the letter addressed by the passport authorities, it is elicited that the permission of the court is required for the renewal of the passport of the petil:ioner herein. lt is not with regard to travelling abroad and that is a subsequent event, which cannot be adjudicated in this case. Hence, the trial court went wrong in observing that the petitioner failed to file any travel document and the purpose for travel, which is not the ,:ase of the petitioner. I I 5 EfO,J c.l.P. 0.12592 0l2A,5

10. ln view of the Official Memorandum dated 10'10'2029 and the letter addressed to the petitioner by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, it is held that the permission has to be granted to the petitioner herein for renewal of the passport' Hence' the impugned order needs to be set aside'

11. Accordingly' the Criminal Petition is allowed granting permission to the petitioner for renewal of his passport and the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Crl'M'P' No'342 in CC No'571 of 2021 by the Vll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class' Hayathnagar' Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending' shall stand closed' SDI U .s ASSISTANTR A TRAR ,fTRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Vll Addl' Juclicial Magistrate of Firtst Class' R'R Dist at Hayathnagar' 2. The Station House Officer' Vanastalipuram police Station' Hayathnagar' I Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad' 4. One CC to Sri P' Vamsheedhar Reddy' Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies Telangana.[OUT] SPJPSL Yt" HIGH COI'RT DATED:1"1/1 1t2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.{2592 ot 2O2S il{r1E SIA .1 AIJttl2025 z t ) PAT 1 ALLOWIIIG THE CRIMINAL PETITION g,of'o &^,