Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ruchir Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
1 WP-14743-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14743 of 2025
RUCHIR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Samresh Katare -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the
VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna whereby the application seeking
permission for international travel and renewal of passport preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a businessman having business
in the fields of mining, transportation, railway rack handling etc., across
various districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh and even outside the State.
Petitioner has to make foreign trips for bringing better technical mechanical
and other resources for enhancing the business. He hold various immovable
properties in the district Satna and Chhatarpur itself. He is a tax payer and
regularly pays huge amount of tax to the State as well as the Central
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
2 WP-14743-2025
Government every year. He is holding a valid passport bearing No.
L3230974. The same was renewed from time to time. The validity of the said
passport was upto 20.11.2023. The petitioner on expiry of the passport
preferred an application for renewal of his passport before the respondent
No.2. The respondent No.2 vide communication dated 09.04.2024 informed
the petitioner that in terms of the police verification report, a court case under
Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 354(g) & 500 of the Indian Penal Code is
pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has to appear in person along
with court judgment/order permission so that application for renewal can be
processed further. It is argued that an FIR was registered against the
petitioner on 12.11.2022 at Police Station Kolgawan for offence punishable
under Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 354(gha) & 500 of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ,
Section 63 and Section 37 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. He has been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2022. The petitioner is complying
with the terms and conditions of the bail order. In order to comply with the
directions issued by the respondent No.2 regarding Court permission to
travel abroad, he preferred an application on 11.12.2023 seeking permission
for renewal of passport before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. The same
was decided on 25.04.2024 wherein the learned Sessions Court has observed
that "In this case, there is no direction that the accused cannot move beyond
the boundaries of India. His right to movement has not been restricted by any
order of this Court." Since his movement has not been restricted, this Court
is having no authority to interfere in the independent decision making of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
3 WP-14743-2025
passport authorities and circumstances warrants no interference and
accordingly the application was disposed off. He informed the respondent
No.2 about the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the IInd Additional
Sessions Judge along with the representation dated 06.05.2024 requesting to
renew his passport as the Trial Court has expressed his no objection
regarding renewal of passport. The said representation was replied vide
communication dated 16.05.2024 and once again sought permission of the
Court making a reference to Gazette notification dated 25.08.1993 published
by the Government of India.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought on record a Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of India Ministry
of External Affairs with respect to the issue of passport to the applicants
against whom criminal cases are pending before the Court of Law in India. It
is argued that there is a requirement of permission of renewal of Passport
from the learned Trial Court in respect of those cases where criminal
proceedings are pending against the applicants who are seeking renewal of
passports. The petitioner once again preferred an application on 25.01.2025
before the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna seeking renewal of
passport. The said application was again dismissed for the reason that the
exclusive domain of passport authorities to renew the passport cannot be
interfered by the Court. It is argued that the authorities are not passing any
final order deciding the application but they are only issuing communication
seeking Court's permission which have already been granted but the same
was not considered by the authorities. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
4 WP-14743-2025
He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Satwant Singh
Sawhney Vs. APO, New Delhi reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 , Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal
Appeal No.1342/2017), Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in 1975
(1) SCC 248 and Hardik Shah Vs. Union of India and another (Writ Petition
No.5692/2020). It is submitted that the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss
due to non-renewal of passport. He is already complying with the terms and
conditions of the bail order. The liberty granted by the Court extending bail
to the applicant cannot be curtailed by the authorities by not renewing the
passport of the petitioner, therefore, this petition has been filed seeking
quashment of the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 and further direction to
the respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents has objected to the petition and
has contended that a criminal case is registered against the petitioner which is
pending consideration which is not in dispute. It is only a bail which has been
extended to the petitioner. There is every possibility of the petitioner being
misusing the liberty granted by the Court and he can flee away. Therefore,
till the pending case is finally decided there should not be any renewal of
passport of the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of
this Court a subsequent document issued by the Government of India with
respect to renewal of the passport and prays that it is the exclusive domain of
the Regional Passport Office to consider the case for renewal of passport.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
5 WP-14743-2025
7. The record indicates that the petitioner is facing criminal case
registered at Crime No.1535/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 354(gha) & 500 of Indian Penal Code and Sections
3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 , Section 63 and
Section 37 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 against which he has filed an
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by Fifth
Additional Sessions Judge, Satna vide order dated 06.12.2022. The
notification was issued by the Government of India with respect to renewal
of passport is filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-8 dated 10.10.2019.
Relevant clause being Clause 2, 3 and 5 are as under :-
"2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is reproduced below for
reference:
GSR 570(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a)
of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in
supersession of the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E) dated the
14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion
that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts
citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending
before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from
the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, 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) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be
issued-
(1) for the period specified in order of the court referred to
above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport
has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be
issued for a period of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of
the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year;
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the
passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
6 WP-14743-2025
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can
be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the
applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by
the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order
of the court is not cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further
renewed only on d basis of a fresh court order specifying a
further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period
for travel abroad:
(d) the said citizen shall given an undertaking in writing to the
passport issuing authority that he shall if required by the court
concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance
in force of the passport so issued.
3. It may be noted that applicants may be refused passports
only on grounds mentioned under Section 6(2) of the Passports
Act, 1967. Section 6(2) (f) of the Act 3 states that the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document to
an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are
pending before a criminal court in India. GSR 570(E) dated
25.8.1993 was introduced to give relief to such applicants
against whom criminal proceedings are pending before any
Court of law in India but who may need to travel abroad for
some urgent business. With an undertaking under GSR 570(E)
and an order from the Court, an applicant could be issued a
short validity passport of one year validity or for the period
specified by the Court.
5. In view of the above, the following instructions may be
adopted while processing the passport applications in respect
of those applicants who may have criminal proceedings
pending before a criminal court in India:
(i) The provisions of GSR 570(E) may be strictly applied in all
cases. GSR 570(E) is a statutory notification and hence forms
part of the Rules. It is to be moted that as per Section 5(2) of
the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority shall by order
in writing take a decision whether to issue or refuse a passport,
after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider
necessary. Moreover, Section 7 of the Passports Act, provides
that a passport or travel document may be issued for a shorter
period than the prescribed period if the passport authority, for
reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant,
considers in any case that the passport or travel document
should be issued for a shorter period. Rule 12 of the Passport
Rules, 1980 only states that an ordinary passport shall be in
force for a period of 10 years which implies that an ordinary
passport cannot be issued beyond a period of 10 years.
(ii) Whenever an applicant is submitting a 'No Objection
Certificate' (NOC) from & Court of law in India, the applicant
should be advised that undertaking as per GSR 570(F) should
be complete in all respects and should mention all the pending
criminal cases against the applicant. The undertaking will have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
7 WP-14743-2025
a note clearly stating that if any false or incomplete
information is submitted by an applicant, then his passport
application is liable to be rejected.
(iii) Extant instructions clearly lay down that such applications
should be processed on pre-Police Verification (PV) mode.
"Pre-PV" would be mandatory in all cases of applications
submitted with GSR 570(E) to ensure that the undertaking
submitted by the applicant is properly matched with the
criminal cases mentioned in the Police Verification Report
(PVR). Hence, such applications should not be accepted under
Tatkaal nor such applications be moved to "post-PV" mode or
"No-PV" mode without proper justification and approval to be
recorded in writing.
(iv) If an undertaking is incomplete or misleading and the
applicant is found to have suppressed details of other criminal
cases against the applicant, a Show Cause Notice should be
issued to the applicant and action initiated against that
applicant as per provisions of Section 12 of the Passports Act,
1967. If information that an applicant has obtained a passport
by making a false submission or by suppressing material facts
comes to light after the passport has been issued, the passport
may be impounded or revoked as per provision of Section
10(3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967, after following the due
procedure.
(v) In case where the first Police Verification(PV) is 'Adverse',
secondary police verification may be generated. While a
secondary PV is generated, it should be accompanied by a
detailed letter seeking clarification regarding the pending
criminal cases against the applicant and the status of these
cases. Apart from generating secondary PVR, the passport
officers may, if considered necessary, call for discreet enquiry
through the police authorities by sending the court order
submitted by the applicant or even seek verification from other
government agencies/departments, as the case may be.
(vi) In case where the secondary Police Verification is also
'Adverse', it may be examined whether the details brought out
in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the
applicant. It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases
under investigation do not come under the purview of Section
6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be
considered pending against an applicant if a case has been
registered before any Court of law and the court has taken
cognizance of the same.
(vii) If the details given in the police report and the
undertaking submitted by the applicant are matching, then the
'No Objection Certificate Issued by a Court of law submitted
by the applicant would take precedence over any 'Adverse'
report submitted by the police. In such cases, the 'Adverse'
report may be overruled with the written approval of the
Passport Officer.
(viii) If the details given in the PVR and the undertaking
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
8 WP-14743-2025
submitted by the applicant are at variance, then a notice may
be issued to the applicant calling for clarification and advising
the applicant to submit details of all pending criminal cases as
well as to submit a revised No Objection Certificate (NOC).
(ix) If it is brought to the notice of the authority that an
applicant has criminal proceedings arrayed against applicant
before several courts of law, then the applicant may be advised
to get NOC from all the concerned court(s). Normally, the
Court Order would make a mention of the cases pending
against the applicant as well as the prayer made by the
applicant. This may be examined along with the undertaking
submitted by the applicant and complaints or other court
orders, if any, that may have been received against the
applicant.
(x) It may noted that GSR 570(E) only exempts an applicant
from the operation of Section 6(2)(1) and none of the other
sub-sections of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.
(xi) A revised Undertaking under GSR 570(E) is attached at
Annexure 'A'.
(xii) Passport Officers may issue an internal SOP along the
above lines so that there is no confusion in handling of
applications that would attract provisions of section 6(2)(1) of
the Passports Act, 1967."
8. The guidelines as reflected herein are framed in view of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition
(CRL)No.2844/2018/CRL.M.A.No.48674/2018 and has directed that the
guidelines be issued by the Ministry reiterating the procedure for processing
of such applications and emphasizing that such applications need to be
processed with due care and diligence. In view of the aforesaid, the
application seeking renewal of passport has to be dealt with by the
authorities in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Ministry of
External Affairs. The application has been filed by the petitioner seeking
renewal of license pointing out the fact that as he is having a business, he has
to frequently travel abroad, therefore, permission should be granted for
renewal of license. The learned Trial Court has disposed of the said
application stating therein that there is no rider for the applicant that he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20729
9 WP-14743-2025
cannot travel abroad, however, there is a requirement of having a Court order
as reflected from the Officer Memorandum issued by the Government of
India for renewal of license, in those cases where the applicants are having
criminal cases registered against them. In view of the aforesaid, the learned
Trial Court should consider the matter in terms of the memorandum which
has been issued by the Government of India. That has not been done in the
present case.
9. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 is
unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration in terms of the guidelines
issued by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(CRL)
No.2844/2018/CRL.M.A.No.48764/2018 as well as the office memorandum
dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs and pass a fresh order within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
