Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied Based on Pending Criminal Cases: MP HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar, has pronounced that passport renewal cannot be denied solely on the grounds of pending criminal cases against the applicant. The Court's decision came in response to a writ petition filed by Abu Zar Rangwala, seeking the renewal of his passport.

The petitioner's passport renewal had been withheld due to two pending criminal cases registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents relied on Gazette Notification No.G.S.R No.298(E) dated 14.04.1976 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs to argue against the renewal.

In its observation, the Court drew attention to a prior judgment dated 09.05.2023 (W.P. No.6229/2023) where it interpreted the Gazette Notification. The Court noted that the Gazette Notification was meant to apply when individuals intended to depart from India and required permission from the concerned court. However, the present case pertained to passport renewal and not departure from the country. The Court emphasized the distinction between seeking passport renewal and intending to leave India.

"The Gazette Notification pertains to those intending to depart from India, not to passport renewal," the Court observed, debunking the argument against renewal based on the Notification.

The Court clarified that the Gazette Notification does not pose a legal impediment to passport renewal in cases where individuals are not intending to leave the country. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to renew the petitioner's passport within three months from the date of the certified copy of the order.

The Court made it clear that while passport renewal would be granted, it does not automatically grant permission to travel abroad. Individuals with pending criminal cases would still need separate permission from the concerned courts to travel outside the country.

This ruling, echoing the principles of justice and individual rights, will likely impact similar cases in the future and could lead to a more nuanced approach in cases involving passport renewals and pending criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 14th August, 2023

ABUZAR RANGWALA vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY

Latest Legal News