ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. With the consent of both the learned counsel the Writ Petition itself has been taken up for hearing. 2. This Court has heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Gani Vivek Karra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the 1st and 6th respondents and the learned Government. Pleader for Home (Respondents 2 to 5). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a citizen of America. He has come to Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh as a student in 1990 and continued to stay back in India. The petitioner arrived in India, more so to Andhra University in Visakhapatnam and he developed an affinity/admiration and thus stayed back in the city. After completion of his education he has also fulfilled the legal formalities and is now residing in the city of Visakhapatnam. He has started some companies also. The petitioner applied for a residential permit on 15.12.2018; submitted the requisite application etc., but the same was not processed, which lead to the filing of the present Writ Petition with a prayer to process the residential permit application. Apart from that the petitioner also sought permission to travel abroad for the purpose of visiting his sick father. The said permission was also denied on the ground that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case. This inaction and rejection prompted filing the present Writ Petition. 4. Notices were served on the respondents and the main answering respondents are respondent Nos. 1 and 6, who are represented by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. A detailed counter was also filed on their behalf. The other respondents are represented by the learned Government Pleader for Home. 5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been residing in Visakhapatnam since long. He joined in Andhra University as a student, he fell in love with the city of Visakhapatnam and thereafter started a company etc., providing software and allied financial services. Learned senior counsel points out that all the companies duly registered as per law and the petitioner has been residing in Visakhapatnam since 21 years. The petitioner also invested in shares, opened bank accounts and is engaged in several NGOs and non-profitable organizations. Learned senior counsel points out that all the companies duly registered as per law and the petitioner has been residing in Visakhapatnam since 21 years. The petitioner also invested in shares, opened bank accounts and is engaged in several NGOs and non-profitable organizations. He applied for a residential permit to stay in India. Learned senior counsel points out that one disgruntled ex-employee filed a false complaint against the petitioner and that a crime was registered against him in Cr. No. 720 of 2011 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Learned senior counsel points out that the police, in the course of their investigation, have sent disputed documents to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, which gave an opinion that there is no forgery. Therefore, the final report of closure was filed by the police, as it is a dispute of civil in nature. Learned senior counsel submits that a protest petition was filed by the complainant against the said closure report and the case was taken on file. Since then the case has been pending and it is numbered as C.C. No. 444 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 6. Learned senior counsel submits that on one day i.e., 06.02.2019, the petitioner did not attend the Court and an NBW was issued leading to his arrest. Then on an application the petitioner was granted bail. He submits that since then the case is pending till date. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for a residential permit to enable him to stay in India and also sought permission to travel abroad (Exit Permit). Despite the best efforts made by the petitioner neither the Exit Permit nor the Residential Permit was given to the petitioner. The petitioner wishes to visit his aging father, who is unwell. Therefore, he is seeking the indulgence of this Court for an appropriate order. 7. Learned senior counsel points out on the basis of the averments of the counter affidavit that mere pendency of a criminal case should not be a reason to completely deny the Exit Permit and the residential permit. Learned senior counsel points out that in paragraph 14 of the writ affidavit the details of the 14 trips made by the petitioner from 2012 to 2018 are set out. Learned senior counsel points out that in paragraph 14 of the writ affidavit the details of the 14 trips made by the petitioner from 2012 to 2018 are set out. He points out that this entire paragraph is not denied in the counter affidavit that is filed. Learned senior counsel further points out that despite the existence of criminal case, petitioner was allowed to travel abroad and he come back but now for extraneous reasons the petitioner's request for Exist Permit and Residential Permit are being denied. Learned senior counsel relies upon the land mark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 and argues that a right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. He argues that the petitioner is entitled to travel abroad. Learned senior counsel also points out that as per the Foreigners Order-1948, permission to depart from India can be stopped only if civil authorities are satisfied that the foreigners presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge. He submits that considering the nature of the petitioner the charge pending and his past conduct, the respondents should not have denied the Exit Permit. The satisfaction as per him needs to be based on strong grounds and cannot be whimsical or fanciful. In the case on hand he points out that no good or compelling reasons are made out for denying the Exit Permit. Learned senior counsel submits that despite pendency of the civil case, petitioner has gone abroad and come back. He argues that currently he only wants to visit his aging father, who is sick in United States of America. Therefore, he prays for appropriate orders to be passed in terms of the prayer in the Writ Petition. As far as the residence permit is concerned, the learned senior counsel urges that the inaction in processing the same led to this Writ Petition. 8. In reply to this learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st and 6th respondents, relying upon the counter affidavit that is filed, points out that a criminal case is pending, which is registered on a complaint lodged by one Audi Suresh Babu. He points out that the petitioner was arrested in February, 2019 for not attending the Court and thereafter he was released on bail. He points out that the petitioner was arrested in February, 2019 for not attending the Court and thereafter he was released on bail. As far as the resident permit is concerned learned counsel submits that the report is still being awaited from the Commissioner of Police on the activities and business of the petitioner. Regarding the Exit Permission he submits that the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam gave an opinion stating that the petitioner's presence is essential in India and if he is permitted to travel United States of America, securing his presence would be difficult. Learned Assistant Solicitor General points out that in view of these two reasons, the petitioner's case could not be processed further. 9. This Court has heard learned senior counsel and the learned Assistant Solicitor General at length. 10. The Criminal cases, on the basis of which the petitioner is denied the Exit Permit, pertain to the years 2011-2013. The 1st Crime is 720 of 2011 and the 2nd Crime is 85 of 2013 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. These cases are numbered as C.C. No. 444 of 2017 and C.C. No. 873 of 2017 respectively. If these details are viewed against the details of the travel of the petitioner, it is clear from paragraph 14 of the writ affidavit that from 24th April, 2011 onwards the petitioner went on 14 trips ending with 28th October, 2018. All these trips are of short duration. The details of the departure from India and the return to India are very clearly given in the Writ affidavit. The same are not denied in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed photo copies of his passport with entry and exit stamps. The contents of the same are not denied. Therefore, a reading of all these would clearly show while the so called cases are pending from April, 2012/2013 till date, the petitioner has been travelling from and coming back to India. 11. Apart from this, this Court also notices the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crl. M.P. No. 484 of 2019 in C.C. No. 444 of 2017. On 06.02.2019 the petitioner did not appear before the Court. As such an NBW was issued by the Court and on the same day a Criminal M.P. was filed for cancellation of the NBW. Later, Crl. M.P. No. 484 of 2019 in C.C. No. 444 of 2017. On 06.02.2019 the petitioner did not appear before the Court. As such an NBW was issued by the Court and on the same day a Criminal M.P. was filed for cancellation of the NBW. Later, Crl. M.P. No. 484 of 2019 was filed for a bail and the three questions which the Court considered before passing the order are found in paragraph 4 of this order. The bail application was also opposed on the ground that there is a likelihood of the petitioner's escape in case of his release as he is a foreign national. The trial Court noticed in the operative portion of its order that the petitioner was absent on 06.02.2019 and his counsel also filed a petition on the same day for recall of the NBW. The trial Court noticed that the petitioner shows his bona fides and interest to continue in India. Apart from that the Court also felt that the petitioner was sent to the judicial custody on the execution of an NBW only and he has been in detention because of that and not for any offence charged against him. The trial Court also noticed that the counsel for the petitioner was representing the matter continuously showing that there is no willful or intentional negligence on the part of the petitioner to avoid the proceedings. Therefore, after considering the conduct of the petitioner and despite being conscious of the fact that the petitioner is a foreigner residing in India, the Court allowed the bail application. 12. Apart from this, the issue raised by the petitioner about the Forensic Laboratory coming to a conclusion that there is no forgery and the subsequent action of the police in filing the closure report in Cr. No. 720 of 2011 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam shows that the petitioner has made out a case. Of course, at this stage this Court is not commenting on the merits of the criminal case, but a prima facie examination of the document shows that the dispute was held to be a civil dispute and therefore a closure report was filed. The fact also remains that this crime was registered in 2011 and the final report was filed on 28.09.2012. A protest petition was filed and later C.C. was numbered in 2017. The fact also remains that this crime was registered in 2011 and the final report was filed on 28.09.2012. A protest petition was filed and later C.C. was numbered in 2017. Although eight years have passed, finality has not yet been reached in this criminal case. In this interim period, the petitioner travelled to and fro from the country without any objection by anybody. In these years he did not leave the country clandestinely or indulge in any conduct which could make him a "flight risk" The details of his visits are very clearly mentioned earlier. There is no allegation of his being accused of any other crimes. 13. The petitioner has also complied with law as it stands. He has an employment visa/permit which enables him to reside in India. He sought a residential permit, which is not yet granted. He has also sought an Exit permit to visit his aging father. 14. As far as the residential permit is concerned as can be seen from the counter affidavit that is filed, an enquiry is still pending. The petitioner states that he has applied in December, 2018 for a proper residential permit. Although ten months have elapsed, till date no finality has been achieved so far. This Court finds that the period taken to verify the antecedents is enough. Nevertheless, considering the fact that a thorough enquiry has to be made, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents should be directed to process the application dated 05.12.2018 for the residential permit as soon as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. This time frame is fixed to enable them to thoroughly look into the background of the petitioner. 15. As far as exit permit is concerned, it is the second prayer made in the writ petition. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner in traveling to and fro from India, the remarks of the trial Court Judge while granting the bail and his social standing, as disclosed by various documents filed, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents should be directed to immediately issue an Exit Permit to the petitioner to enable him to travel to United States of America to visit his old age father. The petitioner shall also execute (a) proper notarized affidavits detailing clearly the places he proposes to visit and (b) also furnish a copy of the two-way ticket that he wishes to travel upon. Apart from that petitioner should also clearly state on oath in the affidavit that he will return to India and participate in the trial of both the cases. These sworn affidavits should be filed in both the cases which are stated to be pending. 16. Under the Passports Act, 1967 there is a provision which enables the passport authority under Section 6(2)(f) and Section 6(2)(g) of the Act to refuse to issue a passport to any Indian citizen. However, subsequent guidelines have been issued by which a person can obtain permission of the Court where the case is pending and travel abroad, as per the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. No. 570(E), dated 25.08.1993. Drawing an analogy from the said instructions which are given to Indian Citizens wanting to secure a passport, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an Exit Permit on the above terms and conditions. If an Indian citizen, against whom a criminal case is pending, can give an affidavit to travel abroad after securing the Court permission there is no reason why such a benefit should be denied to the present petitioner whose past conduct does not really justify him as a "flight risk". 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent to process and complete the Residential Permit of the petitioner in the time schedule fixed and also to issue Exit Permit forthwith to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.