The Kerala High Court has given a clear interpretation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The Court held that a mere FIR or ongoing investigation, without a final report or court taking cognizance, does not amount to "criminal proceedings pending."
This important ruling came from Justice A. Badharudeen while hearing a case related to the renewal of a passport. The petitioner, who was under a vigilance investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, approached the court challenging the conditions imposed by the Vigilance Court for passport renewal.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Holds Bank Accountable for Cashing Cheques with Forged Signatures
The Vigilance Court had allowed the renewal of the passport but with strict restrictions like surrendering the passport, deposit of security, and a ban on foreign travel. The petitioner argued that such restrictions were unnecessary and that unless a court had taken cognizance of a criminal offence, passport authorities were free to renew or issue a passport.
Referring to previous judgments, especially the ruling in Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Officer [2021 (5) KHC 625], the Court reaffirmed that unless a final report is filed and cognizance is taken by a court, no criminal proceedings are said to be pending.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Allows Conditional Arrest of Sister Ship MV MSC Polo II in Cargo Loss Claim
"If the final report has not been filed and no cognizance has been taken by the court, then no criminal proceedings are pending before the court, and the passport authority is free to decide on the grant of a passport without permission from the court."
In the present case, the FIR was registered but the investigation had not yet been completed. Therefore, the Court followed the same legal principle and clarified that no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act.
"In the instant case, even though FIR was registered, the investigation so far not completed. If so, following the ratio in Thadevoose Sebastian's case and the decisions referred in paragraph No.17 of the same, 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."
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Cheque Bounce Case Invalid If Bank Account Is Frozen, Not Due To Insufficient Funds
The Court thus held that the petitioner did not require court permission for passport renewal.
The High Court also struck down the strict conditions imposed by the Vigilance Court, terming them excessive and not legally justified, especially since no formal proceedings were pending in any court.
Case No. OP(CRL.) NO. 324 OF 2025
Case Title : Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Petitioner’s Counsel: Adv. Ajit G Anjarlekar, G.P. Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B.
Respondents’ Counsel: Adv. O.M. Shalina (Deputy Solicitor General of India), Adv. Rajesh A (Special PP, VACB), SRPP Rekha S.
