1. The case of the petitioner,precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he has been residing in United States of America (USA) for more than a decade and employed there. He is an Indian citizen, and holds an Indian Passport bearing No. N5456091, originally valid from 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2025. As the passport was about to expire, he filed a renewal application on 16.08.2025, after which the Respondent authorities issued anacknowledgment dated 19.08.2025 containing ARN 25-2004104432. Shortly thereafter, on 21.08.2025, Respondent No.3 sent an official email requesting that the petitioner furnish the current status and supporting documents relating to any pending cases or proceedings so that his renewal application could be further processed. The petitioner replied the same day, stating that to the best of his knowledge, there were no pending cases against him. However, to his shock, he received another email dated 22.08.2025 from Respondent No.3 informing him that, during processing, it had been discovered that he was listed as an accused in Crime No.569/2021, registered under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before the Women Protection Section, Crime Zone, Hyderabad District. In response, the petitioner sent a detailed email dated 23.08.2025, asserting that he had no knowledge whatsoever of such a case, had never received any summons or notices, and therefore was unaware that any criminal proceedings existed.

               1.1 Despite this clarification, Respondent No.3 sent yet another email on 09.09.2025, asking him to directly contact the Women Protection Section (WPS), Hyderabad, and update his case status because Respondent No.3 lacked access to further details about Crime No.569/2021. The petitioner, unable to do so from the United States, asked his father in Hyderabad to make the necessary enquiries. Based on the information obtained by his father, the petitioner wrote a further email dated 10.10.2025 to Respondent No.3 acknowledging that a case—Crime No.569 of 2021—had indeed been registered under the aforementioned penal provisions and that it was then pending before the Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as C.C. No.2901 of 2022. In the same communication, the petitioner asserted that the case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute initiated by his wife, Kode Sneha, which he characterized as “baseless and vague allegations” motivated by grudge and personal vendetta. In the light of this explanation, he expressly requested that the renewal of his passport be processed without reference to the pending case, particularly because the allegations did not relate to any issue affecting national security or public order.

               1.2 Despite these communication exchanges, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to take any action on the renewal application and continued to keep it pending, thereby causing him grave hardship and serious professional inconvenience. He refers to the ruling of this Court ruling in Sannith ReddyMandhadi (Writ Petition No.2422 of 2024), particularly paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein the Court held that mere pendency of criminal cases should not be a ground to deny passport facilities and directed renewal of passport for a similarly placed petitioner. Based on this precedent, the petitioner contends that the respondents’ continued refusal to renew his passport—despite his explanation dated 10.10.2025—is arbitrary, and violative of his right to travel abroad under Article 21.

               1.3 It is contended that the respondents appear to justify their inaction by pointing to his alleged involvement in Crime No.569/2021. The petitioner states that the respondent countered the renewal request of the petitioner by alleging through email dated 22.08.2025 that the petitioner was indeed an accused in that case and therefore renewal could not proceed without further verification. The petitioner contends that these counter-allegations are unsupported by any summons or notice ever served on him and maintains that the criminal proceedings themselves arise from a matrimonial complaint, not from any criminal wrongdoing. As such, the clash between allegations and counter-allegations center on whether the pendency of a dowry-related complaint—whose legitimacy is in dispute— can lawfully obstruct a citizen’s right to renewal of a passport needed for ongoing employment abroad.

               1.4 The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition, acting through his father and General Power of Attorney holder, authorized under a GPA dated 18.10.2025, seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6, Kode Sneha, through her mother and General Power of Attorney holder Kode Satyalaxmi, under a GPA dated 24.03.2025, stating that the marriage of respondent No.6 was solemnized with the petitioner on 15.11.2015, and the marital relationship deteriorated almost immediately after the wedding conducted on 15.11.2015. It is contended that she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner and his parents from the inception of her married life, and that prolonged mistreatment led her to lodge a complaint on 05.08.2021 before the Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, DD Hyderabad. This complaint was registered as FIR No. 569 of 2021invoking offences under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent emphasizes that on 05.08.2021 itself, the police served a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. on the parents of the writ petitioner, and that this notice was also “received on behalf of the petitioner” by his father—the very person who now files and verifies the writ petition as his GPA holder.

               2.1 It is contended that the service of notice on 05.08.2021, together with the petitioner’s family’s consistent involvement in the criminal proceedings, demonstrates that their later claim of having “absolutely no knowledge” of the pending crime is false. It is alleged that by denying knowledge of FIR No. 569 of 2021 before both the passport authorities and this Court, the petitioner and his father have committed perjury by “swearing to wrong affidavit and making wrong statements on oath.” She further submits that the Women Police Station completed its investigation and filed a chargesheet before the Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was explicitly shown as absconding, leading to the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) on 28.08.2021. This chargesheet was taken on file as C.C. No. 2901 of 2022, and the trial court simultaneously issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner.

               2.2 It is further contended that the petitioner’s father (GPA holder) and the petitioner’s mother appeared before the trial court through counsel but thereafter remained continuously absent, prompting the trial court to issue Non-Bailable Warrants against both of them on 18.06.2025. It is stated that NBWs remain pending not only against the petitioner but also against both parents, and that the LOC issued on 28.08.2021 likewise remains in force. She argues that these details, together with the family’s explicit receipt of notices and summons, demonstrate that the petitioner’s assertion of ignorance in communications such as his emails to the passport authority dated 21.08.2025, 22.08.2025, 23.08.2025, and 10.10.2025 is incorrect.

               2.3 It is alleged that the petitioner submitted “wrong information” to the passport officials when he declared that there were no pending cases “to the best of his knowledge,” even though his parents had received the notice in criminal proceedings on 05.08.2021 and were later aware of the NBW and summons from the trial court. It is alleged that the petitioner also withheld from this Court the existence of the LOC and the pending warrants, thereby approaching the Court with unclean hands.

               2.4 It is further contended that the judgment in Sannith Reddy Mandhadi (supra), does not assist the petitioner as he is not only involved in criminal case but also suppressed material facts such as warrants and LOC. It is also contended that the petitioner and his parents are also facing a separate Domestic Violence case, filed by the 6th respondent through the Protection Officer, which the petitioner has suppressed in this writ petition.

               2.5 The 6th respondent further contends that due to harassment inflicted upon her by the petitioner, she obtained a restraining order from the Court in New Hampshire, USA, which she later withdrew only after repeated assurances from the petitioner and his parents that he would change his behaviour and cease emotional, verbal, mental, and physical harassment. It is stated that after withdrawing this order in good faith, the petitioner resumed harassment, which ultimately led to her complaint in India.

               2.6 It is contended that the renewal of a passport cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a litigant who is evading lawful criminal process, against whom a LOC and NBWs are in force, and who has misrepresented the facts, and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel on record for the petitioner; Mr. B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government representing respondents No.1 to 4; and Mr. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, while making his submissions in line with the writ affidavit, would essentially contend that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for delaying or denying the renewal of the passport, and that it is settled law that obtaining of passport by a citizen is his right, that cannot be curtailed. It is also contended that the petitioner is an Indian national and is now in USA and his passport is expiring today, and he had made application for renewal of his passport well in advance before the validity expires, and unless his passport is renewed, he would be deprived of a legally valid Indian Passport, his residency and employment status in USA would be jeopardised. It is also contended that the petitioner is seeking renewal of his passport so that his passport becomes valid and he can travel to India, and therefore there is no point in the contention being canvassed by the respondents that the petitioner’s passport cannot be renewed due to criminal proceedings, as, essentially the petitioner requires his passport even for travelling to India. Learned Senior Counsel rebuts the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government that an Emergency Certificate would be issued if required to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner’s passport was not impounded, to give rise to the contention of an Emergency Certificate, and further Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner’s right to get his passport renewed cannot be curtailed, and no alternative documents in lieu of the renewed passport can be issued at the discretion of the respondent authorities. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the petitioner is not denyingthe pending criminal proceedings, and the petitioner being residing in a foreign country and employed there, and the criminal proceedings in India essentially emanating from a matrimonial dispute cannot be made to come in the way of renewal of his passport, and even as per the settled law, pending criminal proceedings does not bar a person from obtaining or renewing Indian passport, and therefore the respondent-authorities may be directed to renew the Indian passport of the petitioner forthwith without further delay.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, based on instructions, and the learned counsel for respondent No.6, based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, would essentially contend that the petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 2901 of 2022, and the petitioner, and also his parents have knowledge of the pending criminal proceedings in India, and the parents of the petitioner have initially attended the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner, however, later on discontinued to attend, and the trial Court issued NBWs against the petitioner; and these facts have emerged in the enquiry during the passport renewal process and the petitioner have not disclosed them while making the application for renewal, and therefore this amounts to misrepresentation and suppression of facts and therefore the writ petition may be dismissed.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted thatthe petitioner has submitted his passport renewal application on 16.08.2025, duly acknowledged on 19.08.2025 with ARN 25-2004104432, and that despite complying with all requirements—including responding to emails dated 21.08.2025, 22.08.2025, 23.08.2025, 09.09.2025, and10.10.2025—his application was kept pending indefinitely. Significantly, the respondent themselves admit that the application was received and that the petitioner furnished an explanation on 10.10.2025 regarding Crime No.569/2021 (C.C. No.2901/2022), yet no material has been produced to show that the authorities either rejected the application under any provision of the Passports Act, 1967, or afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before withholding the renewal. Further, the respondent does not dispute the petitioner’s contention that no notice under Section 10(3) or 10(5) of the Passports Act was issued, nor the passport authority complied with the mandatory requirement of recording reasons in writing before withholding a passport.

               6.1 Furthermore, although the respondent alleges that the petitioner and his father had knowledge of the criminal case due to purported service of a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice on 05.08.2021, she simultaneously admits that the Look-Out Circular (LOC) was issued only on 28.08.2021 and that the Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued much later, on 18.06.2025.

               6.2 It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to deny or indefinitely withhold passport facilities, particularly in the absence of a specific order under Section 10 of the Passports Act. The ratio of the case in W.P.No.2422 of 2024 applies to the facts of the present case, and it is clear that unless the competent authority forms an independent opinion supported by reasons, the right to hold and renew a passport, being an extension of the right to travel under Article 21, cannot be curtailed.Even assuming the allegations against the petitioner to be true, they do not obviate the statutory obligation of the passport authority to issue notice, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order under Section 10. The respondent has not cited any authority permitting the State to keep a passport renewal application “in abeyance” without following due process; and more importantly when the petitioner is in a foreign country with the only document to identify his nationality being a valid passport. Substantively, the mere pendency of criminal proceedings (in C.C. No. 2901 of 2022), without a judicial order restraining the renewal of the passport, cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing or stalling a passport renewal.In view of the foregoing, the impugned inaction of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in delaying to renew the passport of the petitioner is unsustainable in law.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the 1st respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.