Patna High Court – Orders
Sanjay Kumar vs The Union Of India on 23 June, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9729 of 2024
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son of Sri Rajkapoor Prasad, resident of - Bankipur Gorakh,
(Near Doctor Brijmohan), Fatwah, P.S. - Fatwah, District - Patna, Bihar, Pin
code - 803201 at present residing at - New Chitraguptanagar, Parwati Devi
Path, Behind Nobel Hospital, Post office - Lohiyanagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar,
District - Patna, Pin code - 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs,
South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, India.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Patna, 2nd and 3rd
floor, D Block, Mourya Lok Complex, Patna, Bihar - 800001.
3. The State of Bihar, Through Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate
For the UOI ; Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC-26
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to SC-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 23-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC
appearing on behalf of the Union of India and learned SC-26 for
the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is employed as an office executive in SAR Healthline
Private Limited and as per the requirement of the job, the
petitioner has to travel both inside and outside India. The
petitioner in connection with his job had to go abroad, as such,
applied for passport in the Regional Office, Patna on 11.07.2022
(Annexure-1) vide application reference no. 22-0010250916
(PA1066633527222). It is further submitted that petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
2/8
received letter dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure-2) issued by the
Regional Passport Office, Patna asking him to submit his
acquittal order of the Court in connection with Case No. 379 of
2019. On receipt of the letter dated 03.08.2022, the petitioner
appeared before the respondent no. 2 and explained that till date
charge-sheet has not been submitted in the case, hence, acquittal
in the case does not arise. It is next submitted that thereafter
petitioner was waiting for his passport to be issued but was
surprised to receive letter dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure-3) from
the office of the respondent no. 2 asking him to appear in person
in connection with Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 379 of 2019
with Court judgment.
3. The petitioner appeared and he was informed that
passport cannot be issued unless he submits judgment of
acquittal. Further, since a year had lapsed from the date of
application, hence, the petitioner was asked to apply afresh.
Accordingly, the petitioner on 04.08.2023 (Annexure-4) again
applied for issuance of passport afresh but then till date the
petitioner has not been issued passport nor has been informed of
the reason as to why passport is not being issued despite best
endeavours of the petitioner to know the reason nor the
authority competent met the petitioner despite seeking
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
3/8
appointment as would manifest from Annexure-5 series to the
writ application, i.e., appointment receipt dated 11.03.2024 and
14.03.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 379 of 2019 was instituted by his
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act in which investigation till date is
pending, as such, charge-sheet has not been submitted. It is
further submitted that petitioner was informed by his employer
that he has been selected for 25 th Anniversary Celebration
abroad, hence, was asked to keep his passport ready vide email
dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure-7) but since the passport was not
issued, hence, petitioner lost the said opportunity.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16278 of 2024
(Gautam Rana Vs. The Union of India and Anr.) had decided
a similar issue by an order dated 10.04.2025. It is further
submitted that the authorities were directed to renew the
passport of the petitioner. It is next submitted that this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 16278 of 2024, at para 9, had recorded as under:-
“It is next submitted that investigation in Pipra
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
4/8P.S. Case No. 40 of 2023 is still pending. It is
further submitted that the police after
investigation may submit charge-sheet
connecting the petitioner with the offence
finding the allegations to be true, or after
investigation the police may come to a
considered conclusion that petitioner is innocent
and may file final form exonerating the
petitioner from the allegations, but in both the
situation, the police report will attain finality
only when the learned trial Court applies its
judicial mind on the point of cognizance. It is
submitted that even if the police submits a
charge-sheet finding the case to be true, the
learned trial Court may accept the charge-sheet
and take cognizance, or the learned trial Court
after perusing the case diary may direct for
further investigation or may refuse to take
cognizance, if the material collected during the
course of investigation is not sufficient to
establish a criminal charge against an accused.
Similarly, if the police after investigation,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
5/8submits final form exonerating the petitioner of
the allegation, the learned trial Court may differ
with the police report and take cognizance or
may accept the report or may direct for further
investigation. It is thus submitted that a criminal
case instituted culminates only when cognizance
is taken and till the time cognizance is not taken,
the criminal case cannot be said to be pending
before the Court of competent criminal
jurisdiction.”
6. At this stage, the learned State Counsel submits that
the State was also impleaded as a party respondent in the instant
case by an order dated 10.04.2025 and thereafter the case was
taken up on 28.04.2025 and the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Patna was directed to file a counter affidavit.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in
compliance of the order dated 28.04.2025 filed a counter
affidavit and thereafter a supplementary counter affidavit. It is
submitted that in the supplementary counter affidavit, at para 3,
it has been specifically pleaded that charge-sheet no. 117/2020
dated 25.03.2020 was prepared but then the investigating officer
of the case for reasons best known did not submit the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
6/8
before the learned trial court and it was only when the instant
writ application was taken up that the said irregularity came to
the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna when
charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna Sadar on 26.04.2025 (Annexure-C to
the supplementary counter affidavit).
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India submits that since charge-sheet has been submitted, as
such, now the case is pending before a court of competent
criminal jurisdiction, hence, no positive direction can be given
to the authority for issuing passport on which learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a
supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been
filed wherein at para 3, it has been specifically pleaded that
cognizance in the case till date has not been taken by the
concerned Court and the next date fixed in the case is
21.12.2025. It is, thus, submitted that since cognizance in the
case till date has not been taken and the next date fixed in the
case is 21.12.2025, hence, if the Court does not intervene, the
passport of the petitioner shall not be issued when this Court in
the case of Gautam Rana (supra) has already held that mere
filing of charge-sheet in absence of cognizance will not lead to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
7/8
conclusion that criminal case is pending before a Court of
competent criminal jurisdiction.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner asserts and submits that if passport is issued and
thereafter cognizance is taken in that event the petitioner will
appear before the learned trial court and abreast the learned trial
court of the facts of the case and thereafter the learned trial court
shall deal with the petitioner in accordance with law.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Union of India submits that the petitioner while
filling his application for seeking passport had not disclosed that
he was involved in a criminal case on which learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the case
was under investigation and charge-sheet was not submitted, as
such, it was not mandatory on part of the petitioner to disclose
about the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
merely because charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance
till date has not been taken, as such, it cannot be said that a
criminal case is pending before a Court of competent criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.9729 of 2024(7) dt.23-06-2025
8/8
jurisdiction.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and also taking into consideration the case law relied by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 is
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of
passport in accordance with law within a period of four weeks
from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U