Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner, the accused, seeking a directive from the Court directing the respondents, passport authorities, to issue him a passport, a single-judge bench of Dinesh Mehta, J., held that the pendency of a criminal case, where a negative final report had been filed, did not justify the refusal to issue a passport and directed the passport authorities to issue the passport to the petitioner if he was otherwise eligible.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Taranagar Police Station, Churu District, on 08-11-2022. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a negative final report (in favor of the petitioner), yet the passport authorities refused to issue the passport, citing ongoing criminal proceedings.
The petitioner argued that despite the favorable investigation, the authorities were infringing on his fundamental and statutory rights under the Passport Act, 1967. However, the respondent acknowledged the negative final report but argued the criminal case was still pending before the court, preventing the issuance of a passport as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (Passport Act).
Moot Point
Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings, despite the filing of a negative final report, prohibits the issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act?
Legal Provisions
-
Section 6(2) of the Passport Act enumerates the grounds on which the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport. This includes pending criminal proceedings under clause (f).
-
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 & GSR 570(E), provides exemptions and allows issuance of passport in certain cases of pending criminal proceedings, subject to a court order allowing the applicant to travel abroad.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act does not impose an absolute bar on the issuance of a passport, especially in cases where a negative final report has been filed. The Court referred to the office memorandum dated 10-10-2019, which allows the issuance of passports in pending cases if the Court permits travel abroad. In the present case, since a negative final report had been submitted and the matter had not progressed in over a year, the Court held that the case did not fall within the strict definition of “pending proceedings”.
“…petitioner’s case in which negative final report has been filed, cannot be said to be covered by the expression- “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India”.”
The Court held that the pendency of a criminal case, where a negative final report had been filed, did not justify the refusal to issue a passport. The Court held that the petitioner’s case did not meet the condition that would warrant a refusal under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to issue the passport to the petitioner within four weeks, provided the petitioner met all other eligibility requirements.
[Pradeep Kumar Kandoi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2780, Decided on 12-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Hardik Gautam, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit for Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G., Counsel for the Respondent
