Passport Name Change Can’t Be Denied Solely on Pending Criminal Case Without Cognizance: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that passport authorities cannot rely merely on the existence of a criminal complaint—where cognizance has not yet been taken by a court—to deny or delay processing of a request for correction of name in a passport. The bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abhay J. Mantri directed fresh police verification and ordered authorities to decide the petitioner’s application within a fixed timeframe. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by Yogesh J. Joshi, who sought correction of his name in his passport. The petitioner had earlier held a passport issued in the name of “Sachin Jagdish Prasad Joshi” and had subsequently changed his name multiple times, eventually adopting “Yogesh Jagdish Joshi.” The request for alteration of the passport was rejected following an adverse police verification citing a pending criminal case. According to the Court record, several criminal proceedings had been registered against the petitioner in the past, including cases under the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Money Laundering law, and the Central Excise Act. However, most of these cases had already been closed. Only one case before a criminal court in Margao, Goa, remained pending, and importantly, the trial court had not yet taken cognizance of the matter. Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that under government guidelines and judicial precedents, mere pendency of an FIR or investigation does not amount to “criminal proceedings pending” for the purposes of passport denial unless a court has taken cognizance. The Division Bench referred to the Office Memorandum governing passport issuance and earlier judicial precedents, observing that criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a case has been registered before a court and the court has taken cognizance. The Court also relied on earlier judgments which held that passport authorities are bound by these guidelines and cannot deny applications solely on the basis of police reports indicating investigation or un-cognized complaints. The Bench noted that the situation of the petitioner was squarely covered by these principles, since cognizance had not yet been taken in the remaining case. Another reason cited for rejection was that the petitioner had allegedly not cooperated with police verification because his residence was locked during the verification visit. Government counsel informed the Court that re-verification could be conducted if the petitioner remained present at a specified date and time. Accepting this submission, the Court directed the petitioner to remain available at his residence for police re-verification and instructed the authorities to complete the exercise in accordance with law. Disposing of the petition, the Court issued several directions. Police authorities were instructed to conduct re-verification on a specified date and time. Authorities were directed to consider applicable judgments and the legal position that absence of cognizance does not amount to a pending offence for passport purposes. A reasoned order on the petitioner’s request was to be passed within 15 working days after verification and communicated to him. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue further legal remedies if an adverse order was passed.Yogesh J Joshi The Bench also noted the unusual circumstance that the petitioner had changed his name multiple times over the years, sometimes altering even the form of his father’s name. While the Court remarked that no explanation had been provided for these frequent changes, it clarified that the legal issue before it concerned only the passport correction process and police verification requirements. Case Details Case Title:Yogesh J Joshi Versus Regional Passport Office, Mumbai Citation: JURISHOUR-19-HC-2026(Bom) Case No.: CIVIL WRIT PETITION (L) NO.37339 OF 2025 Date: 12/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala Counsel For Respondent: Leena Patil Click Here To Read Order Read More: No 6% CENVAT Reversal on Electricity Sold to Grid: CESTAT

Passport Name Change Can’t Be Denied Solely on Pending Criminal Case Without Cognizance: Bombay HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

AO Can’t Reject DCF Share Valuation and Substitute NAV Method for Section 56(2)(viib) Addition: ITAT

Marriage Gifts and Household Cash Retention Can’t Be Rejected on Mere Suspicion: ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition

ITAT Restores Dawoodi Bohra Jamat’s 12AB Registration Matter

Donation to Political Party Was Part of Accommodation Entry Scheme: ITAT Upholds Denial of S. 80GGC Deduction

More like this

AO Can’t Reject DCF Share Valuation and Substitute NAV Method for Section 56(2)(viib) Addition: ITAT

Marriage Gifts and Household Cash Retention Can’t Be Rejected on Mere Suspicion: ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition

ITAT Restores Dawoodi Bohra Jamat’s 12AB Registration Matter

About us

Company

Categories