Criminal 'Proceedings' U/S 6(2)(f) Passport Act To Include Investigation Prior To Filing Of Chargsheet: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal...
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court for any alleged offence committed by the applicant.
Counsel for petitioner highlighted that the directions issued by the coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and 2 others regarding permission of the jurisdictional court where FIR may have been filed was against the Circular issued by Union Government dated No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019. Clause 5(vi) of the Circular clarifies that mere filing of FIR and cases under investigation do not constitute pending proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
It was argued that the directions issued in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar were in ignorance the aforesaid Circular and were too harsh to be applied in every case.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that even though the Circular was not placed before the Court while issuing modalities in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar, the Circular is not a piece of statue or legislature.
“They remain executive instructions and at most subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, they may be read against the issuing authority, here the respondents-State authorities, on the principle of contemporaneous reading. At the same time where a Circular may be found to be contrary to the law, it may not compel a constitutional Court to enforce it against the law.”
Since in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar the Court had held that the word 'proceeding' must be given a wider interpretation, it cannot be narrowed to mean criminal cases registered after chargesheet is filed.
Accordingly, the writ filed by the petitioner was disposed of in terms of the modalities issued by the Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar.
Case Title: Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Counsel for Petitioner: Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Raghav Dev Garg
Counsel for Respondent: Yogendra Kumar