Permission Of Court Not Required To Renew Passport If Final Report Is Not Filed And Cognizance Not Taken: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that if the final report has not been filed and cognizance has not been taken by the trial court, then there is no criminal proceeding pending before any Court, and hence no permission is required for renewing the passport. 

A Petition was filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Special Court, which allowed renewal of the passport of the Petitioner while imposing conditions on him, as an FIR was pending against the Petitioner.

The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated the ratio in the Judgment of the High Court in Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Office & Anr (2021) and observed that "even though FIR was registered, the investigation so far not completed...it could not be held that any criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner within the meaning of section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Therefore, for renewal of the passport of the petitioner, permission of the court is not necessary". 

Advocate Ajit G Anjarlekar represented the Petitioner, while Dy. Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner applied for the renewal of passport to the Special Court, and the same was renewed with conditions, as an FIR was filed against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the investigation was not completed, and hence the final report was not filed and cognizance was not taken by the Court. The Petitioner applied to the Special Court for the renewal of passport and the same was granted, however, on conditions that the Petitioner has to surrender his passport, shall not leave India without the permission of the Court, deposit Rs. 20,000 as security, among others. 

It was the contention of the Petitioner that since investigation has not been completed and before filing the final report, no criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 6(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, can be said to be pending before a Criminal Court. In such circumstances, even though it was not necessary for the petitioner to apply to the Special Court for renewal of his passport, he filed an application on a misunderstanding. Thus, the Petitioner sought to quash the order of the Special Court imposing conditions on the Petitioner. 

Court's Reasoning

The Court referred to Section 6(f) of the Passport Act 1967, which deals with the power of the passport authority to refuse passport, travel documents etc. for visiting a foreign country. Further, Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passport Act provides that pendency of proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant pending before a Criminal Court in India is a valid reason to refuse passport or travel documents.

The Kerala High Court referred to various judgments on the issue and observed that "if the final report has not been led and no cognizance has been taken by the court, then no criminal proceedings pending before the court, and the passport authority is free to decide on the grant of a passport without permission from the court."

Accordingly, the Original Petition (Criminal) was allowed and the condition imposed by the trial court was quashed, with liberty to the Petitioner to apply for renewal of passport as per law. 

Cause Title: Raju Kattakayam V. State of Kerala & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:40962)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Ajit G Anjarlekar, G.P.Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B.

Respondent: Dy. Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina, Advocate Rajesh A

Click here to read/download Judgment