Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Khatri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 CRA-62-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 62 of 2019
(SUNIL KHATRI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SPECIAL POLICE
ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT )
Dated : 21-04-2025
Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad- Advocate for the respondent.
1. Heard on I.A. No.1939/2025, which is an application filed by the
appellant No.1 Sunil Khatri for seeking permission of this Court to renew his
passport, as the appellant is already convicted by the Special Judge Shajapur
(M.P.) in Special Case No. 18/2013 vide its judgment dated 27.12.2018, for
offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1998 and Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The present application has been filed on the ground that the
appellant No. 1 wishes to renew his passport and,therefore, permission of
this Court is required.
3. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the
Notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on 25.08.1993, and it
is submitted that for renewal of the passport, the permission of this Court
would be necessary. Counsel has submitted that the provisions of Clause (e)
& (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1967") and it is submitted that since an appeal has
already been filed more than five years prior to the date of application, the
2 CRA-62-2019
same can be entertained under the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (2)
of Section 6 of the Act of 1967.
4. Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan, counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar Sharma vs. The Regional Passport Officer and others passed in W.P.
(C) 9957/2018 dated 11.1.2019 reported as 2019 (1996) AIC 735 , and the
decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
the case of Mohanlal @ Mohna vs. Union of India and others {CWP- 27167
of 2018 decided on 14.7.2023}; the decisions rendered by this Court at Main
Seat Jabalpur in the case of Ashish Singh Chouhan and Union of India and
another {W.P.no.27436/2022 dated 06.12.2022}; the decision rendered by
this Court in the case of Jaikishan Tejwani & 2 others vs. State of M.P.
{Cr.A.no. 1223 of 2009 dated 27.07.2022 . Thus, it is submitted that the
application may be allowed and the Passport Authorities may be directed to
renew the passport.
5. Shri Prasanna Prasad, counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that since a criminal appeal is still
pending before this Court, as per sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act,
1976, which provides that to issue a passport or travel document for visiting
any foreign country cannot be granted when a proceeding is pending in the
criminal court.
6. In support of his submissions, counsel for the respondent has relied
upon the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Kishore Singh vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P. no.4293/2017 dated
3 CRA-62-2019
05.03.2018, and in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. Union of India passed
in W.P. no.5368/2017 dated 09.01.2018. It is also submitted that the
appellant ought to have submit an application before the Passport Authorities
and only upon its rejection, he could have alleged the same that too in writ
jurisdiction of this Court and not in this appeal.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the
record as also the documents filed on record, this Court is inclined to allow
the application since the contention of the respondent that it was necessary
for the appellant to first apply for renewal of his passport before the Passport
Authorities cannot be sustained in view of issuance of a Notification in this
regard by the Ministry of External Affairs on 25.8.1993, wherein, it is
prescribed that a permission is required from the Court where the criminal
case is pending, which also relates to clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section
6 of the Act of 1967. It is also found that so far as clause (e) and (f) of sub-
section (2) of Section 6 of the Act are concerned, both these provisions co-
operate in different spheres as on one hand a person, who is convicted can
apply for renewal of passport after five years from the date of conviction;
whereas clause (f) of sub-section(2) of Section 6 of the Act provides that
such permission cannot be granted when the proceeding is pending before
the criminal court. It clearly reveals that clause (e) provides for the
permission to be granted after a period of five years from the date of
conviction. Whereas clause (f) reveals that the cases which are still pending
before the trial court.
8. So far as the decisions rendered by the counsel for the respondent
4 CRA-62-2019
are concerned, the same do not specifically deal with clause (e) and clause (f)
of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act and deals with only clause (f), and
thus, both the decisions are distinguishable on facts, and are of no avail to
the appellant.
9. In view of the same, the application stands allowed and the
appellant is directed to file an appropriate application before the Passport
Authorities, who shall issue the passport to the appellant in accordance with
law.
10. I.A. No.1939/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
