Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 934 (ALL)

Anubhav Jain v. Union of India

2025-07-14

PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Hasan parvej, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Union of India. 2. The matter is being heard after exchange of affidavits. 3. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to renew the Passport No. H4969575 of the petitioner which has been expired on 06.08.2019 for which the petitioner submitted online application for renewal of Passport No. H4969575 dated 16.04.2019 before the respondent no. 2." 4. Upon perusal of the documents, it appears that by an order dated 12.06.2019, the grant of passport to the petitioner has been rejected. The relevant portion of the order is provided below: "Sir, Please refer to your letter dated 02.06.2019 regarding clarification given by you for issuance of passport wherein you have stated that case pending against you has been stayed by Hon'able High Court. In this regard it is informed that as per section 6(2)(1) of the passport Act, 1967 "The Passport issuing authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel documents for visiting any foreign country if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. As far as your case is concerned, the court proceedings as you stated have been stayed by Hon'able High Court, however stay order does not mean that the proceedings have been quashed/suspended or withdrawn. Hence the criminal proceedings are still pending against you and therefore Section 6(2) (1) is applicable in your case. In view of the aforesaid rules your application for reissue of your Passport could not be agreed to until the case is disposed or Hon'able court gives you permission to travel abroad/grant of Passport." 5. Hence the criminal proceedings are still pending against you and therefore Section 6(2) (1) is applicable in your case. In view of the aforesaid rules your application for reissue of your Passport could not be agreed to until the case is disposed or Hon'able court gives you permission to travel abroad/grant of Passport." 5. The criminal proceeding such as Case No. 1686 of 2018, State Versus Anubhav Jain and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0116 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, has been stayed by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.08.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 17705 of 2018. After perusal of section 198-A Cr.P.C. such disputes are of private or matrimonial in nature. 6. One may place reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Versus Central Bureau of Investigation , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order is reproduced herein below. "The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court. Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of." 7. One may further also look into the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Basoo Yadav Versus Union of India , 2022 SCC OnLine All 849 , wherein, the issue has been squarely covered. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of." 7. One may further also look into the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Basoo Yadav Versus Union of India , 2022 SCC OnLine All 849 , wherein, the issue has been squarely covered. The relevant portion of the judgment is provided below: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and after having gone through the instructions which have been sent by the Director General of Police, the Court is definitely of the view that no non-cognizable report which was registered could be taken into cognizance if no investigation was ordered by the concerned Magistrate. Even though in the instant case, whether the passport can be refused on the basis of the pendency of the criminal case is not the question involved, we are of the view that even during the pendency of any criminal case, passport could be issued/renewed as per the Government Order dated 25.8.1993 if the Court passes orders for that purpose. In the instant case, we do find that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of the two reports of non-cognizable cases namely NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018. The Director General of Police has also given his view that the reports with regard to the non-cognizable cases could not be made the basis for rejecting an application for issuance of passport if they had not been investigated into. The Director General of Police has also given his view that the reports with regard to the non-cognizable cases could not be made the basis for rejecting an application for issuance of passport if they had not been investigated into. Under such circumstances, we issue the following directions :- (1) The passport form of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport be considered within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow; (2) Since we are finding that in quite a few cases the reports of non-cognizable cases in which the concerned Magistrate had not even ordered for investigation were being taken into account for rejection of passport, we issue a direction to the Director General of Police to instruct his officers to give a report with regard to the pendency of reports in non-cognizable cases after appropriate and proper application of mind; (3) Outright the passport applications be not rejected under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act if orders of the Court, where the criminal case is pending, have been passed as per the Government Order dated 25.8.1993. The Director General of Police to issue notification in this regard also. With these observations, the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed." 8. In light of the above judgments, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, the passport authority has acted beyond the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 2, Regional Passport Officer, to act in accordance with law and issue a fresh passport to the petitioner, if all other conditions are met, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.