No Cognisance, No Bar: Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Passport Authority to Process Application Despite Pending Crime

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a passport application cannot be blocked by a pending criminal case where the court has not yet taken cognisance of the charge sheet, directing the Regional Passport Officer to process the application under the Passports Act, 1967.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, on 4 June 2026, disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage, directing the Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, to consider a passport application without reference to Crime No. 575 of 2025 registered at Patamata Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada. Justice Subba Reddy Satti, sitting singly, held that where a court has not taken cognisance of a charge sheet, there are no “proceedings pending before a criminal court” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner had been refused processing of the application after an adverse police verification report cited the pending crime. The court found the issue squarely covered by a Division Bench ruling of the same court in W.A. No. 383 of 2024.

The Passport Application and the Shortfall Notice

The petitioner applied for a passport before the Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, under File No. VS1066654343026. On 15 May 2026, the passport authority issued a shortfall notice, bearing Letter Ref. No. SCN/1055013440/26, marked as Ex.P1 before the court. The notice sought clarification arising from an adverse police verification report that pointed to the petitioner's involvement in Crime No. 575 of 2025 at Patamata Police Station.

The passport authority's position, as reflected in the shortfall notice, was that the crime had been charge-sheeted. The petitioner challenged this communication by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as contrary to the Passports Act, 1967. An interlocutory application under Section 151 CPC was also filed seeking an interim direction to process the application pending disposal of the writ petition.

The Statutory Bar Under Section 6(2)(f)

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 governs the grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Section 6(2)(f) specifically provides that a passport may be refused where “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.”

The central question before the court was whether the existence of a registered crime, where the police had not yet filed a final report before the jurisdictional court and the court had not taken cognisance, amounted to “proceedings pending before a criminal court” for the purposes of this provision. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home confirmed, on instructions, that the police had not filed any final report before the jurisdictional court. There was accordingly no dispute that the court had not taken cognisance of the matter.

Division Bench Precedent on Cognisance and Passport Refusal

Justice Subba Reddy Satti found the issue covered by the Division Bench's order dated 29 October 2024 in W.A. No. 383 of 2024. In that case, the Division Bench had examined the position of the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, which had not taken judicial notice of a charge sheet filed before it. The Division Bench held that such a court could not be said to have taken cognisance, and equally could not be said to have initiated proceedings under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Division Bench's conclusion, extracted in the present order, was that “proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Since no cognisance had been taken, there was no question of proceedings pending before a criminal court, and Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 would not be attracted.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti applied this reasoning directly to the facts of the present petition. The jurisdictional court had not taken cognisance of Crime No. 575 of 2025. The bar under Section 6(2)(f) was therefore not triggered, and the passport authority's reliance on the pending crime to stall the application was not sustainable.

Right to Travel as Personal Liberty

The court also addressed the broader constitutional dimension. It reiterated that unless guilt is proved, an accused is presumed innocent, and the mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar to the issuance or renewal of a passport. The right to travel abroad, the court observed, is a facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported at (2013) 15 SCC 570, which affirmed that a person presumed innocent is entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to liberty under Article 21. It also referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597, and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India and Others, (2019) Supreme (SC) 1516, both of which held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage. Justice Subba Reddy Satti directed respondent No. 3, the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Visakhapatnam, to consider the petitioner's application for issuance of a passport under File No. VS1066654343026 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, without reference to Crime No. 575 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, and to do so as expeditiously as possible. No costs were awarded. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed as a sequel.