2014 (6) TMI 1064 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to 3rd respondent to issue passport to the petitioners - Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act 1967 - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the applications submitted by the petitioners for passport were not considered by the 3rd respondent for the reason that FIRs are pending against them. The Superintendent of Police, Tirnelveli, has filed counter affidavits stating that First Information Reports have been filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences, stated supra, since they are involved in the agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Project. So far as the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.8349 of 2014 is concerned, the criminal case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353 307 IPC. Since the FIRs are pending against the petitioners, the 3rd respondent has not considered the applications of the petitioners, by placing reliance on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. It is clear that unless the Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, on filing of charge-sheet on completion of investigation against the applicant, it cannot be said that the proceedings are pending before the Criminal Court. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot mechanically refuse to issue passport to the petitioners, merely for the reasons that the FIRs are pending against the petitioners. On receipt of the application for passport, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The writ petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders regarding issuance of passports to them, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Issuance of passport based on pending criminal cases and FIRs

Analysis:
1. Application for Passport and Adverse Police Verification Report:
The petitioners applied for passports to seek employment abroad. However, the 3rd respondent received adverse police verification reports stating the petitioners were involved in agitation against a nuclear project, with FIRs pending against them. The petitioners denied suppressing any information and sought passport issuance.

2. Counter Affidavits and Criminal Cases:
The 3rd respondent, in counter affidavits, mentioned the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners for various offenses related to the agitation. The petitioners were asked to explain the suppression of information regarding these cases. The 3rd respondent relied on the Passports Act, 1967, to refuse passport issuance.

3. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The petitioners argued that mere pendency of FIRs should not bar passport issuance unless the court takes cognizance of the alleged offenses. They cited legal precedents like CDJ 2010 Cal HC 344, 1994 Cri.L.J.257, and AIR 2008 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 35 to support their stance.

4. Judicial Interpretation and Decision:
The court examined the legal provisions under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and emphasized that the pendency of FIRs does not equate to pending criminal proceedings before a court. Referring to the judgments cited by the petitioners, the court held that passport issuance cannot be refused solely based on pending FIRs. The court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the applications and issue passports within four weeks, emphasizing the need for proper legal assessment.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the distinction between FIRs and pending criminal proceedings before a court, emphasizing the need for legal clarity in passport issuance matters.