FIR alone cannot block passport processing unless a criminal court has taken cognizance, Gauhati High Court says

The petitioners applied for passports under the Tatkal Scheme. Following adverse police verification reports identifying four FIRs concerning petitioner no. 1 and one FIR concerning petitioner no. 2, the Regional Passport Officer issued objection letters dated 13 October 2025 and did not process the applications further.

Three of the five cases had resulted in final reports; investigation remained ongoing in two cases concerning petitioner no. 1.

The petitioners sought a direction to process their applications, contending that no criminal court had taken cognizance of any offence against them.

1. Whether registration of an FIR or an ongoing police investigation, without criminal proceedings pending before a competent criminal court, attracts the refusal ground in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

2. Whether the Passport Issuing Authority could be directed to process the petitioners’ applications where no court had taken cognizance, subject to verification of the current status of the cases.

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 permits refusal of a passport where proceedings concerning an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court in India; the provision is subject to the other provisions of the Act, including Section 22.

Under the Central Government’s notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, issued under Section 22, a person facing such proceedings may obtain a passport upon producing the requisite court order and complying with the notification’s conditions.

The Court, relying on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, [2025] 12 SCR 1307, noted that the notification does not create an additional substantive bar and that a court’s permission and the applicant’s undertaking may operate within the statutory scheme.

A mere FIR or investigation does not, by itself, amount to proceedings pending before a criminal court for Section 6(2)(f); the Court stated that criminal proceedings are pending for this purpose where a case is before a court and cognizance has been taken.

The adverse reports disclosed FIRs and investigations, but the record showed that three cases had ended in final reports and contained no material establishing that a competent court had taken cognizance against either petitioner.

Since Section 6(2)(f) applies to proceedings pending before a criminal court—not merely to police investigation—the provision would not bar processing if no such proceedings were pending. The Court therefore required the petitioners to state the current status of the cases and directed the Passport Issuing Authority to verify whether the statutory condition existed.

It disposed of the petition, directing each petitioner to reply to the objection letter within 15 days; the Authority must ascertain the status within 15 days of receiving the replies and, if Section 6(2)(f) does not apply, process the applications under the applicable law, preferably bringing the process to finality within one month.