Archive · 29 Aug 2026
Delhi Court Frames Charges Against Ex-ACP Over Passport Information
A former police officer named Vinod Kumar Pandey applied for a new passport in 2013.
A criminal case was already pending against him at that time.
He allegedly did not mention that case on his passport application.
A Delhi court said this information was important and ordered charges to be framed.
Pandey argued that the case should not be heard in Delhi.
He said his passport was issued by the passport office in Ghaziabad.
The court disagreed because part of the application process happened in New Delhi.
The order means the case can proceed, not that Pandey has been found guilty.
A Delhi court ordered charges against former ACP Vinod Kumar Pandey under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967.
Pandey allegedly failed to disclose a pending criminal case when applying for a fresh passport in 2013.
The court held that suppressing information about a pending criminal trial was material information.
Pandey argued that Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction because his passport was issued in Ghaziabad.
The court rejected that objection, citing the application affidavit’s execution and notarisation in New Delhi.
- Who
- Former assistant commissioner of police Vinod Kumar Pandey is accused in the case.
- What
- A Delhi court ordered charges to be framed under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, for allegedly suppressing a pending criminal case while applying for a passport.
- When
- The passport application was filed in 2013; the court order was dated August 25, with the year not specified.
- Where
- The matter was heard in a Delhi court; the passport was issued by the Regional Passport Office in Ghaziabad, while the supporting affidavit was executed and notarised in New Delhi.
- Why
- The court found a prima-facie case because information about the pending criminal trial was allegedly omitted from the application.
Court and Prosecution Position
Accused’s Position
Alleged passport disclosure
Court and Prosecution Position
The court held that information about a pending criminal trial was material and that omitting it supported a prima-facie case under the Passport Act.
Accused’s Position
Pandey disputed the prosecution’s version of events and objected to the case proceeding on that basis.
Territorial jurisdiction
Court and Prosecution Position
The court held that Delhi had jurisdiction because part of the alleged offence occurred there when the supporting affidavit was executed and notarised.
Accused’s Position
Pandey argued that Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction because his passport was issued by the Regional Passport Office in Ghaziabad.
- Accused
- Vinod Kumar Pandey, a former assistant commissioner of police
- Alleged conduct
- Failure to disclose a pending criminal case in a fresh passport application
- Application year
- 2013
- Legal provision
- Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967
- Court finding
- A prima-facie case was made out
- Jurisdiction objection
- Pandey argued that Delhi lacked jurisdiction because the passport was issued in Ghaziabad
- Jurisdiction basis
- The affidavit was executed and notarised in New Delhi; the court relied on Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure