Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Patwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.21802 of 2024
(JITENDRA PATWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER)
&
M.Cr.C. No.24106 of 2024
(JITU PATWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 17-06-2025
Shri H.S. Chhabra and Shri Barmeet Singh Sarna - Advocates for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Sharma - Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.
............................................................................................................................................
Although, these petitions are not connected but considering the fact
that in both the petitions the petitioner is the same and the interlocutory
applications filed therein i.e. I.A. Nos.13970/2025 and 13971/2025 are also
for the same purpose viz. for seeking permission to renew the passport and
to travel abroad, both the applications are being decided concomitantly.
However, it is made clear that these matters shall not be treated to be
connected.
2. The petitioner has filed these petitions under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR registered against
him vide Crime No.355/2024 at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior,
for the offence punishable under Sections 509 of the Indian Penal Code
and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also the FIR registered vide Crime
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
No.227/2024 at Police Station Jobat, District Alirajpur for the offence
punishable under Sections 228A of IPC, 23 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015, respectively.
3. By both the interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. Nos.13970/2025 and
13971/2025, the petitioner is seeking permission for renewal of his
passport and also to travel abroad on the ground that his daughter Ms.
Divyanshi Patawari, who is presently residing in United Kingdon and
pursuing her higher studies from University of Warwick located at
Coventry, United Kingdom. It is stated in the applications that although she
has completed her academic programme and the graduation ceremony
(convocation) for conferment of her degree is scheduled to be held from
14.07.2025 to 25.07.2025 at University of Warwick, Coventry, United
Kingdom and, therefore, the petitioner being the father is interested to
attend the said convocation ceremony because according to him it would
be a momentous occasion of his daughter's life. As such, the petitioner is
seeking permission for renewal of his passport and to travel abroad
tentatively between 20.06.2025 and 20.08.2025 and ready to furnish
affidavit in this regard to return to India after completion of the said
period.
4. The petitioner has submitted that the passport bearing No. T7472922
issued in his favour has been expired on 03.09.2020 and therefore, he is
also seeking permission to renew the said passport as the same is likely to
be not renewed due to registration of FIRs against him. It is submitted by
the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of District Indore, State of
Madhya Pradesh and has immovable properties at Indore itself and as such
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
he submits that there is no possibility of misusing the permission if any is
granted by this Court.
5. Shri H.S. Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the FIRs registered against the petitioner has been
assailed by him by the instant petitions seeking quashing of the same
and in one of the cases, charge-sheet has not been filed and in another
one, though charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court but no
notice of appearance of the petitioner has been received by him so far.
Therefore, he has submitted that the aforesaid applications be allowed
and permission be granted accordingly.
6. Although, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for respondent No.1/State has opposed the submissions made
by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that these applications
are not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Court for the
reason that the petitioner should approach the trial Court first and if
permission is not granted then only this Court can entertain the
applications and could grant permission. He has placed reliance upon an
order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.14743 of
2025 (Ruchir Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) on
30.04.2025.
Shri Sharma has further submitted that although he is not
opposing the said request of the petitioner but he is only assisting the
Court to the extent that the legal position is otherwise not permitting the
petitioner to move this Court directly and therefore, according to him,
the applications deserve to be rejected.
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
7. I have heard the rival submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record.
8. In case of Ruchir Jain (supra), the coordinate Bench relying upon
the notification dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of India
containing the guidelines for renewal of passport of a person facing
criminal cases/proceedings and also in other circumstances, has
remanded the matter to the trial Court for considering it afresh and pass
an order accordingly.
9. Although Shri Sharma has submitted that in the present case, the
petitioner should approach the concerning Court where cases are
pending and if permission is not granted then only he could move this
Court for seeking permission to travel abroad but in the opinion of this
Court, this submission of the counsel for the State is not convincing for
the reason that the notification contained the guidelines for renewal of
passport relating to the pending criminal cases, which provides as
under:-
"(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."
10. Shri Sharma has also shown the office memorandum dated 6 th
December, 2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
External Affairs, in which also it is shown as to what is the requirement
for renewal of passport in respect of a person facing criminal
proceedings. The guidelines contained in the said office memorandum
are as under:-
4. The Central Government exercising the power
conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 published
the Official Gazette [GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993]
exempted citizens of India who are facing criminal
proceedings, from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Who produce orders from the court concerned
permitting them to depart from India;
(ii) Passport validity of such passport applications : (a) For
the period specified in order of the court (b) if no
period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified, the passport shall be issued
for a period of one year (c) if such order gives
permission to travel abroad for a period less than one
year, but does not specified the period validity of
passport shall be issued for one year (d) if such order
gives permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding on year, the passport shall be issued for the
period of travel abroad specified in the order;
(iii) The said citizen shall give 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.
11. After perusal of aforesaid notification and office memorandum,
this Court is of the opinion that the basic object for putting such
restriction is nothing but a permission from the Court. Since the matter
relating to the aforesaid criminal proceeding is pending before this
Court, therefore, the applications for seeking permission can also be
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
moved before this Court. The basic object for seeking permission from
the concerning Court is nothing but also a provision enabling the
concerning authority to proceed further even in the cases of a person
facing criminal prosecution. As such, in the considered opinion of this
Court, it would not be proper to reject the application only on the
technicality that the petitioner should first approach the Court concerned
where the charge-sheet has been filed and trial is pending and if
permission is not granted then only he can approach this Court.
12. Since the proceeding relating to quashing of FIR/criminal
proceeding is pending before this Court, therefore, the aforesaid
applications can be considered in the interest of justice.
13. The Supreme Court in case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248; Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of
India (UOI) and others, 2019 SCC OnLine (SC) 2048; Sumit Mehta v.
State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (15) SCC 570; Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 Crl. L.J. (SC)
572 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Ganni Bhaskara
Rao v. Union of India, 2022 AIR (Andhra Pradesh) and the High Court
Bombay in case of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India, 2014(35)
RCR (Civil) 769, have considered this aspect and allowed the
applications for granting permission.
14. The judicial pronouncement made by the Supreme Court and also
by the High Courts is apparent that merely pendency of criminal cases
cannot be a ground of denying passport facilities to the applicant
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
because right to avail personal liberty not only includes applicant's right
to travel abroad but also applicant's right to posses passport.
15. In the present case, the petitioner is a permanent resident of
District Indore, State of Madhya Pradesh and the object for seeking
permission to travel abroad also appears to be genuine and there is no
reason for rejecting his request.
16. From the petition, it reveals that the petitioner, at present is
holding a political post i.e. State President of Madhya Pradesh Congress
Committee and is actively involved in politics and it is expected that the
permission if is granted that will not be misused by him.
17. Recently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
case of Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and others, CWP-14561-2025
(O&M) decided vide order dated 20.05.2025, considering the several
judgment of the Supreme Court and also the legal pronouncement of
various High Courts in respect of renewal of passport of a person facing
criminal prosecution, has granted permission to travel abroad and also
observed that permission can be granted imposing certain conditions.
The observation made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is as
under:-
"10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India reported in 178(1) SCC 248, held that no
person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there
is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains
fair, reasonable and just procedure. Hon'ble the Apex Court
made following observations:
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go
abroad unless there is a law made by the State
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and
the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with
such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to
comply with the requirement of Article 21, that
Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for
regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the
provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays
down the circumstances under which a passport may
be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and
also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the
question is whether that is sufficient compliance with
Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of
procedure enough or must the procedure comply with
any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure
cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This
indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney
General who with his usual candour frankly stated
that it was not possible for him to contend that any
procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust
may be prescribed by the law..."
10.1 In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI)
and others, 2019 SCC Online (SC) 2048; the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic
human right for it nourishes independent and self
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."
10.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of
NCT of Delhi, 2013 (15) SCC 570; 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."
10.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation", 2020
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
Crl. L.J. 572; had an occasion to examine the issue of
pendency of criminal cases in the light of the provisions of
the Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner therein was convicted
in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and
the same was dismissed, however the sentence was reduced
to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein
approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and
the same was pending. In those circumstances Hon'ble Apex
Court held that refusal of a passport can be only in case
where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05)
years immediately preceding the date of application for an
offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for
imprisonment was not less than two years. It was observed
that Section 6(2)(f) of 1967 Act relates to a situation where
the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. Therefore,
considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport
Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the
ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the
Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue
the passport of the applicant without raising the objection
relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in
Supreme Court.
10.4 In Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India, 2022
AIR (Andhra Pradesh); Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court observed as under:-
"5. This Court also holds that merely because a
person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that
he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our
jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent
unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact
that a criminal case is pending against the person is
not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or
hold a passport. Even under section 10 (d) of the
Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if
the holder has been convicted of an offence involving
"moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than
two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it
clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every
conviction is not a ground to impound the passport.
If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion
of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender
of a passport..."
10.5 In Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India,
2014(35) RCR (Civil)769; a Division Bench of Bombay
High Court held as under:
"10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue
guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on
receipt of the applications for renewal of the
passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court
has directed that the passports may be renewed as
per the "Rules".
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court
directs renewal of the passports under the
Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and
passports other than for a child aged more than
15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten
years or twenty years as the case may be from
the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants
are entitled to have passport renewed for at lest
ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall
renew the passports of such qualifying
applicants at least for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and
the applicants hold valid visas on existing
passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall
issue the additional booklet to the same
passport provided the applicant had obtained
permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order
making the reference to the said Notification
No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the
passport shall be renewed only for such period
that the Magistrate may specify in the order or
as otherwise specified in the said Notification
where the passport of the applicant is valid for
less than one year, the additional booklet may
be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in
this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.
12. For avoidance of doubt, we clarify that the
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
guidelines set out herein will be applicable only in
the cases where the learned Magistrate ordered
renewal of the passports as per Passport Rules, 1980
and to no other. In other cases, where the learned
Magistrate had granted permission to the accused
persons to depart from India, the provisions of
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and the
notification(s) issued thereunder from time to time by
the Ministry of External Affairs or such other
competent authority so empowered, will continue to
apply and directions permitting the accused persons
to depart from India and/or the orders permit
renewal of the passports of such accused persons
shall continue to be governed by such Notification(s)
..."
11. From the above referred judicial pronouncements, it
is apparent that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be
the ground to deny passport facilities to an applicant since
right to personal liberty not only includes applicant's right to
travel abroad, but also applicant's right to possess or hold a
passport. Further, keeping in view the observations made by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu's
case (supra), it is clear that if a person convicted of a crime is
entitled to seek a passport as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India; this Court does not find any reason to hold
that the petitioner who is only an accused in the case
mentioned above; cannot hold a passport, especially when
the trial Court has permitted him to apply for a new passport.
12. Further, in the instant case, the petitioner has given
the following undertaking in para 10 of the writ petition:-
"That it is relevant to mention here that the present
FIR in question is pending for adjudication before
the learned trial court and the petitioner hereby
undertake that in the eventuality, the passport is
issued to the petitioner, the same shall remain in
custody of Hon'ble Trial Court during the pendency
of trial. The petitioner further undertake that in the
eventuality of making any program of his travel
abroad, the petitioner will be bound to get prior
permission from the learned trial court and the
petitioner further will be bound to return to India to
rejoin his trial."
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, and having duly considered the
law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in
the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), the
instant writ petition is following directions :
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking
along with an affidavit before the trial Court(s)
concerned in the case(s) wherein petitioner is facing
trial, stating that he will not leave India during
pendency of the said case without permission of the
Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in
concluding the proceedings in the said case.
ii) On filing such an undertaking(s) as well as
affidavit(s), the trial Court shall issue a certified
copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy
of aforesaid undertaking(s) before the Respondent
No.3- Regional Passport Office for issuance of his
passport;
iv) The Respondent No.3- Regional Passport Office
shall consider the application of the petitioner for
issuance of passport in the light of the observations
made by this Court herein as well as the contents of
the undertaking(s) given by the petitioner for
issuance of his passport in accordance with law,
within three (03) weeks from the date when the
petitioner submits certified copies of undertaking(s)
in terms of direction nos.(ii) and (iii) above;
v) On preparation of the Passport, the petitioner
herein shall deposit the original Passport before the
concerned Court where the trial in FIR No.89, dated
12.05.2022 is pending within a period of 10 days
from the date of receipt of passport by the petitioner;
andvi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner
herein to file an application before the concerned
trial Court(s) for seeking permission to travel aboard
and it is for the concerned trial Court(s) to consider
the same in accordance with law."
18. Considering the aforesaid legal position, I am allowing the
MCRC-21802-2024 & 24106-2024
applications imposing a condition that the petitioner is granted
permission to travel abroad and that permission will be effective for a
period of 60 days and would end on 30.08.2025.
19. However, it is made clear that this permission is being granted and
the applications are being entertained in especial circumstances existing
in the present case as the charge-sheet in one of the cases has not been
filed and in another one though charge-sheet has been filed but still
notice has not been issued to the petitioner.
20. The matter is pending before this Court for seeking quashing of
FIRs registered against the petitioner and further proceedings based
thereon. In such circumstances, this Court can entertain the applications
for granting permission and therefore, it is directed that the petitioner
may apply for renewal of his passport and also apply for taking visa, etc.
and after getting the same he may submit the affidavit giving
undertaking before the Court that the liberty and permission granted by
this Court will not be misused by him.
21. With the aforesaid observations, I.A. Nos.13970/2025 and
13971/2025 stand allowed and disposed of.
22. List accordingly.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
