Vaheeda Banu Pitchai Mohamed v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Vaheeda Banu Pitchai Mohamed .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police DCB Police, Trichy.
3.The Regional Passport Officer Thiruchirappalli, Municipal Water Tank Building W.B.Road Thiruchirappalli 628 008.
.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent in Letter Ref.No.OBJ/319833297/24 dated
25.10.2024 quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner in accordance with law. For the Petitioner : Ms.T.Dharani For the Respondents : Mr.K.Suresh Government Advocate for R1 Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate for R2 Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar for R3
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 to quash the same and consequently, issue passport to the petitioner.
2. On a perusal of the impugned order, it only states that adverse police report has been received against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was required to come over to the 3rd respondent - office and explain about the adverse report.
3. As a matter of fact, it is seen that only a FIR in Crime No.1 of 2019 for
the alleged offences under Sections 34, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 (1) of IPC was pending against the petitioner.
4. In this regard, it can be seen that an office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 of the Government of India, bearing reference No.VI/401/1/5/2019 has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein in clause 5 (vi) of the office memorandum it has been stated that mere filing of the FIR's and the cases under investigation do not come within the purview of Section 6
(2) (f) of the Passport Act and that the criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against the applicant, if a case has been pending before any Court of law and the Court has taken cognisance of the same. Therefore, at the first place, the authorities need not even called upon the petitioner.
5. In any event when the matter came up for hearing, today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that after investigation the petitioner's name has been excluded from the said case.
6. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following
terms:- (i) Along with a representation, the petitioner shall produce the copy of this order before the 3rd respondent;
(ii) Upon receipt of the same, if the file No.TR2077047357324 is already closed, the 3rd respondent shall reopen the file and redo the exercise accordingly and if the file is pending, further orders can be passed in accordance with law; (iii) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.02.2025 : No Jer To 1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police DCB Police, Trichy.
3.The Regional Passport Officer Thiruchirappalli, Municipal Water Tank Building W.B.Road Thiruchirappalli 628 008.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Jer 06.02.2025