Gopalakrishnan R v. The Regional Passport Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.12337 of 2025 R.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veedhi, Race Course Road, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the communication, dated 16.04.2024 made by the first respondent vide Letter Ref. No. FCL/317671309/24 in connection with the petitioner's passport application in File No. MD1073992552122 and quash the same and consequently, direct the petitioner to issue the re-issuance of passport to the 1/5

petitioner with the validity of ten years as expeditiously as possible. For petitioner : Mr. S.Vikraman For respondents :Mr.P.Murugesan Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R2 *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition is disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the second respondent.

2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.225 of 2019 before the Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 109 IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner's wife in FIR, which came to be lodged against the petitioner for the alleged offences in Crime No.28 of 2016.

3. It is informed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the second respondent that the case is still pending before the Additional Mahila 2/5

Court, Dindigul in C.C.No.225 of 2019. Meanwhile, the petitioner's passport had expired and therefore, the petitioner had applied for renewal/re-issuance of a fresh passport.

4. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the second respondent, this Court is of the view that although the case is pending against the petitioner, the first respondent cannot deny the renewal of passport. Hence, the first respondent is directed to renew/re-issue the passport in the name of the petitioner. However, the same shall be kept in file of the Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul in C.C.No.225 of 2019. In case, the petitioner wants to travel abroad, the petitioner may file a suitable application before the said Court for travelling abroad.

5. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 18.06.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd 3/5

To

1. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veedhi, Race Course Road, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul.

4/5

C.SARAVANAN, J.

apd 18.06.2025 5/5