Passport Act | Police Must Disclose Complete Status Of FIR In Police Verification: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Observing that police authorities are sending incomplete reports which is the "root cause of denial of passport", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that police authorities must disclose the complete status of FIR in verification done for issuing of the passport.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that the proforma prepared for the information to be furnished by the Police Official in the meeting called by the Additional Solicitor General of India, pursuant to Mohan Lal @ Mohna vs. Union of India and others, should be followed.

"In the performa, it has been made clear that police officials would disclose complete status of FIR i.e. whether police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed or not; whether there is stay granted by Court; whether charges stand framed; whether trial stands concluded; whether applicant has been convicted within 05 years preceding the date of application; whether sentence awarded is less or not less than 02 years; whether court has stayed conviction of the applicant etc," said the Court.

The Court further added that all the police officials posted within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court would send their verification report in the enclosed performa. It also directed the passport authorities to ask police authorities to forward their report in aforesaid performa.

The bench observed that every day it is adverting with more than 10 cases relating to passports, arising on account of denial of passport.

"The passport authorities are denying passport on account of adverse police verification report. It has been noticed that police officials are sending incomplete report which is root cause of denial of passport. The police officials are casually disclosing that an FIR is pending against the applicant. They do not disclose actual status of the FIR," said the Court.

Adding that after notice of motion to passport authority as well as State is passed, the Court said, "it comes out that police either has already filed cancellation report or police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has not been filed or applicant has already been convicted. It has also been found that where there is conviction, a period of more than 05 years has passed away prior to the date of application and in many cases, the quantum of sentence awarded is less than 02 years."

The Court remarked that, "If complete information is submitted by police authorities, a substantial litigation may be avoided."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by one Balwinder Singh seeking re-issuing of passport. Singh applied for re-issuance of passport but police submitted the adverse verification report and passport authority closed his file.

Singh contended that the police has not filed its report under Section 173 CrPC against him, thus his case is neither covered by Clause (e) nor (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967.

Counsel for the union submitted that the application of the petitioner has been closed and if the petitioner files a fresh application, it would be disposed of within 06 weeks considering the judgment of Court in Mohan Lal @ Mohna vs. Union of India and others, 2023 SCC Online (P&H) 1391.

In light of the submission made by the Union, the petition was disposed of with the liberty to move a fresh application seeking a passport.

Appearance: Advocates Paras Chander and  A.S.Rai for the petitioner.

Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Dheeraj Jain, Sr. Panel Counsel

Karan Kumar Jund, Central Govt. Counsel and

 Amrita Singh, Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents-Union of India.

Deepanjay Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Raman Sharma, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 180

Case Title: Balwinder Singh v. Union of India and others

Click here to download/ read the order