Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chekuri Madhuri vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2024
APHC010233742024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 11675/2024
Between:
Chekuri Madhuri ...PETITIONER
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V SRI DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly
one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd
respondent in not renewing the petitioner's passport bearing
No.F2104032 pursuant to the application vide File
No.VS1073167312920 on the ground of pending Criminal
Cases is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art 14 & 21
of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of
Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the 2nd
respondent to renew petitioner's passport bearing
No.F2104032 and pass such other order or orders...."
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is a resident of Visakhapatnam and obtained
passport on 01.03.2005 with passport No.F2104032 and the same is valid till
28.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of passport vide
File No.VS1073167312920 and submitted the same to the Respondent No.2.
4. While so, Respondent No.2 herein issued a letter, dated 25.09.2023 to
the petitioner stating that as per the police verification report, the following
cases are registered against the petitioner:
(i). C.C.No.3319 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam arising out of Cr.No.273 of 2017,
which was registered by II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
(ii). Cr.No.11 of 2020 on the file of the I Town Police Station,
Vizianagaram is also pending against the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to which, the respondents herein did not renew the passport
application of the petitioner.
6. Pursuant to the letter of the respondent No.2, dated 25.09.2023, the
petitioner has submitted her explanation
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is
falsely implicated in C.C.No.3319 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 417,
420 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Cr.No.11 of 2020 for the offences under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 120(b) read with 34 of I.P.C.. She was enlarged on
bail in these two criminal cases and the said cases are pending.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the daughter of
the petitioner is studying P.hd in Gerontology at State Nebraska, Omaha,
U.S.A.. As the petitioner intends to visit her daughter place at the U.S.A, the
renewal of passport is required. In spite of her several requests, respondent
No.2 did not renew the passport of the petitioner and kept it pending. Hence
the writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the fundamental
right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per her wish
as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by
this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others 2. In view of
the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport
11. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned
Judge in KhadarValli Shaik's Case3, the petitioner is required to obtain orders
from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against her.
12. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
1978 AIR 597
W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024
W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023
13. In Kadar Valli Shaik's Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with
various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative
portion of which reads as follows:-
(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent
passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on
compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the
pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected.
(b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the
cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the
Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order
from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.
(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the
application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere
pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of
other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.
14. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of
the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as
follows:-
"9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated
04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of2020 held that mere pendency of a First
Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a
regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is
taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal
proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport
would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.
10. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated
25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a
Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f)."
11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when
there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after
cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no
pending criminal proceeding before the Court."
15. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 4, the High
Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:
6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page
570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as
under:
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is
proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all
the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated
09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish
Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4
observed as under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right
for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms
of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.
The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and
friendship which are the basic humanities which can be
affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this
freedom is a genuine human right."
16. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of
the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of
the petitioner, and renew her passport, in accordance with law, without raising any
objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide C.C.No.3319 of 2020 on the file of
the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and
Cr.No.11 of 2020 on the file of I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram within a period
of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
17. Further, the petitioner shall obtain 'NOC' from Court below to travel abroad.
Accordingly, she shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such
travel and shall appear before the Trial Court, whenever her presence is required
by the Court.
18. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such
steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other
purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
6th September, 2024
KPV
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.11675 of 2024
6th September, 2024
KPV
