Passport renewal despite pending FIRs where cognizance was not taken, with relief granted on undertakings.

Disclosure of a pending FIR, without cognizance having been taken, did not by itself bar renewal of the petitioners' passports under the passport framework governing criminal proceedings. The Court treated the earlier foreign travel, expiry-based renewal request, and filed disclosures as supporting renewal rather than refusal, and granted no objection for renewal. It also accepted the petitioners' undertakings, including one petitioner's commitment to return within two months and the other petitioner's undertaking not to travel on that occasion, and on that basis permitted travel-related relief and directed renewal or issuance of the passports in terms of the applicable notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether renewal of the petitioners' passports could be granted notwithstanding the pending criminal case and the requirement of no objection from the criminal court. (ii) Whether the petitioners could be permitted to travel abroad and the passport authority directed to renew the passports in terms of the relevant notification.

Issue (i): Whether renewal of the petitioners' passports could be granted notwithstanding the pending criminal case and the requirement of no objection from the criminal court.

Analysis: The petitioners had disclosed the pending criminal case in their renewal applications. The pending FIRs had not yet resulted in cognizance, and therefore did not amount to pending criminal cases for the purpose of the passport provision dealing with criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the petitioners had earlier travelled abroad and returned, and that the passports had merely expired, requiring renewal. In these circumstances, the pendency of the case did not justify refusal of renewal.

Conclusion: Renewal could not be refused on the ground of the pending proceedings, and no objection was granted for renewal of the passports.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could be permitted to travel abroad and the passport authority directed to renew the passports in terms of the relevant notification.

Analysis: The Court accepted the undertakings filed by the petitioners, including the undertaking by the first petitioner to return within two months of travel and the undertaking by the second petitioner not to travel abroad on that occasion. On that basis, the Court found it to direct the passport authority to act under the notification governing issuance and renewal where criminal proceedings are pending.

Conclusion: The passport authority was directed to renew or issue the passports, and permission to travel abroad was granted to the first petitioner in accordance with the undertaking.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were finally disposed of by granting no objection for renewal of the passports and by allowing the requested travel-related relief on the terms recorded by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cognizance has not been taken in the referred criminal matters, disclosure of such pending investigation alone does not bar passport renewal under the applicable passport framework, and the criminal court may grant no objection for renewal and travel on the basis of undertakings and the facts of the case.

---