Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Rameshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/SCR.A/9377/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9377 of 2019
==========================================================
MADHUBEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS D SHUKLA(5312) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt
and learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. K.M. Amin
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2
respectively. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the
matter is heard today finally.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct
respondent No.2-authority to renew the Passport of the petitioner bearing
No. H-3926978, which got expired on 30.04.2019.
3. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides, it appears that
the main ground cited by respondent No.2-authority for non-renewal of
the Passport of the petitioner is the filing of a criminal complaint being
C.R. No. I - 10 of 2018 with Idar Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and
R/SCR.A/9377/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2021
7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act wherein, the petitioner herein has been
named as one of the accused persons. In the order dated 27.08.2019
passed by respondent No.2-authority, the reason cited is "You have not
submitted Court Judgment / Decision copy".
4. On a query put by the Court, learned Central Government Standing
Counsel stated that the respondent-authority has refused to renew the
Passport of the petitioner only on account of the registration of the FIR in
question wherein the petitioner has been named as one of the accused and
not on any other ground.
5. It is a well settled that the Passport authority could not refuse
renewal of the Passport of a person on the ground of filing of a criminal
complaint against such person. The filing of a criminal complaint might
be a relevant issue for issuance of a New Passport; however, the
provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 would not be
applicable to cases where renewal of Passport is sought. Thus, in my
opinion, the respondent-authority was not justified in rejecting the
application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport on the ground of
registration of an FIR against her.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent-authority is
directed to consider the Application of the petitioner for renewal of
Passport, on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner and
not to reject the same on the ground of filing of an FIR against her. Such
exercise to be completed within a period of One Month from the date of
receipt of writ of this order. With the above direction, the petition stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
( GITA GOPI, J )
PRAVIN KARUNAN
