Mere Pendency of Criminal Case Does Not Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Andhra Pradesh

High Court of Andhra Pradesh overturned a trial court's refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the renewal of a passport amid pending criminal proceedings. Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, presiding over the Criminal Revision Case No. 1120 of 2024, ruled in favor of the petitioner, permitting him to renew his passport and travel for professional obligations, subject to conditions. The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was allowed to attend an international meeting from December 13 to December 17, 2024.

The petitioner, a Zonal Sales Manager employed with Alchem Laboratories Ltd., sought renewal of his passport to continue professional commitments involving international travel. The trial court, citing the pending criminal case, denied his application on October 17, 2024, reasoning that his departure could pose a risk of non-return and hinder the trial's progress.

The petitioner appealed this decision, asserting his history of compliance with travel conditions and professional obligations. He emphasized that his employment and family ties were centered in Vijayawada, negating the likelihood of absconding.

Justice Sagar noted that the trial court failed to consider the petitioner's professional standing, history of international travel, and compliance with prior conditions. “The discretion that was vested with the Court below was not exercised as it failed to consider the facts that were necessary to be considered. Therefore, the order suffers from arbitrariness and cannot be supported any more.”

The court referred to the principles established in Chapala Venugopal v. Union of India and Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case, which held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings is insufficient to deny passport renewal if other conditions under the notification dated August 25, 1993, are fulfilled. “The application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance with other requirements under notification dated 25.8.1993.”

Acknowledging the petitioner’s professional need and minimal travel duration, the court allowed him to travel abroad from December 13 to December 17, 2024. It directed him to submit his travel itinerary to the trial court and mandated his return by the end of December 2024 to report back to the concerned Magistrate.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the renewal of the passport, recognizing its necessity for citizens, and raised no objections to the petitioner’s professional commitments abroad.

The High Court set aside the trial court’s October 17, 2024, order and allowed the petitioner’s application for passport renewal. “The said petition stands allowed directing the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner for renewal of his passport and also to permit the petitioner to travel abroad on his furnishing travel itinerary to the Court concerned well in advance.”

The decision underscores the balance courts must strike between ensuring trial participation and respecting individual rights to professional mobility, provided sufficient safeguards are met.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2024