Mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not bar passport re-issue or warrant an NOC.

The petitioner held Passport No. P4804091, valid from 28 September 2016 to 27 September 2026, and applied to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, for re-issue of his passport after completing the prescribed formalities.

During police verification, two criminal matters were reported: Case Crime No. 364 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Case Crime No. 2357 of 2013 under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act.

The Regional Passport Officer issued show-cause notices alleging that the petitioner had suppressed the pendency of these cases.

The petitioner claimed that he had been acquitted in the 2018 case and that no charge-sheet or proceedings had been initiated against him in the Gambling Act case.

The record concerning the Gambling Act case disclosed inconsistent orders: one order dated 8 September 2023 appeared to dispose of the case by composition, whereas another order dated 1 April 2026 recorded the petitioner’s confession, convicted him, and imposed a fine of ₹100.

Whether mere pendency of a criminal case disqualifies an applicant from obtaining re-issue of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 and the applicable exemption framework.

Whether the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the pendency of criminal proceedings in his passport application, and whether that question could be decided without verifying the authoritative status of the cases from the concerned criminal courts.

Whether the Passport Authority could insist upon a trial-court no-objection certificate merely because criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner.

The Court considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits refusal of a passport in specified circumstances involving pending criminal proceedings, read with the exemption-making power under Section 22 and Government Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993.

The governing principle is that the restriction is qualified and does not create an absolute bar against holding or renewing a passport merely because criminal proceedings are pending.

The Court relied on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, which distinguishes possession of a passport from the act of travelling abroad: permission to travel is primarily for the criminal court to regulate, while the Passport Authority must determine the appropriate validity period in accordance with law.

The Court further held that suppression requires proof of deliberate non-disclosure with knowledge of the relevant pending proceedings; every non-disclosure is not automatically suppression where the applicant bona fide believed that the case had concluded.

The Court found that the Passport Officer had not yet reliably established the actual status of either criminal case.

The police report concerning the 2018 case was illegible and did not clearly show whether it was a charge-sheet or a final report.

The Gambling Act proceedings were also surrounded by contradictory court orders—one recording composition in 2023 and another recording conviction on confession in 2026—requiring careful scrutiny of the original judicial record.

Consequently, the Court directed the Passport Officer to verify the status of the cases through documentary material obtained from the competent criminal courts, rather than relying solely on unclear police reports.

The Court separately distinguished the question of deliberate suppression from the question of pendency. Even if a case was pending when the application was made, the Authority had to determine whether the petitioner knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose it.

Further, applying Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the Court held that pendency alone could not justify refusal of passport re-issue or an insistence on a no-objection certificate.

However, the question whether the petitioner deliberately suppressed pending proceedings remained open.

The Regional Passport Officer was directed to conduct a prompt and dependable inquiry, verify the status of both cases from the relevant court records, separately assess any deliberate suppression, and thereafter decide the passport application in accordance with Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and the applicable statutory framework.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Passport Officer with all relevant documents. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.