Allowed

Farathulla Syed v. the Regional Passport Officer

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/2004/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for mandamus, directing the Respondent to issue a passport within two weeks. The court held that mere pendency of an FIR without police charge sheet or court cognizance is not a bar to passport issuance, relying on MO dated 10.10.2019.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued to consider passport application within two weeks.

Farathulla Syed Vs the Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27334 WP No. 2004 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 2004 OF 2024 (GM-PASS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FARATHULLA SYED, S/O SYED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A No.81, 6^TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR BANK OF BARODA VICTORIA LAYOUT, BANGALORE 47.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, BANGALORE, 8^TH BLOCK 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 95.

¶14

(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE PASSPORT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27334 WP No. 2004 of 2024

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND )

¶22

The petitioner is seeking mandamus to the respondent to issue passport.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for passport on 14.06.2023. The petitioner appeared before the respondent with prior appointment. The application was not considered in view of the adverse Police report. Learned counsel submits that one P.Kishin Chand filed complaint before the Vidhana Soudha Police Station on 10.05.2015 registered in Crime No.265/2015 relating to property measuring 57 acres.

¶24

The Vidhana Soudha Police Station has not taken any action on the complaint till 12.01.2022. After seven years, the complaint has been transferred to Commercial Street Police Station. The Commercial Street Police have registered FIR in Crime No.14/2022. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.8232/2022.

¶25

This Court by order dated 22.06.2022 has stayed the FIR. It is submitted that as the complaint registered against the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27334 WP No. 2004 of 2024

¶27

petitioner has not resulted in charge sheet or cognizance being taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate, mere pendency of the FIR is no bar to issue passport.

¶28

Learned counsel further relies on the judgment of this Court in WP No.18066/2023.

¶29

Per contra, Sri H Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents fairly would not dispute that similar issue is considered by this Court in WP No.18066/2023.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The petitioner applied for passport on 14.06.2023. The

¶32

said application is not considered by the authorities on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The criminal case is on the complaint filed by P.Kishin Chand relating to land dispute on 10.05.2015 registered in Crime No.265/2015 by Vidhana Soudha Police Station. The said complaint has not progressed. After seven years, i.e. in the month of January 2022, the Vidhana Soudha Police Station has transferred the complaint to Commercial Street Police station

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:27334 WP No. 2004 of 2024

¶35

on the ground of jurisdiction. The complaint is registered in Crime No.14/2022 by the Commercial Street Police Station. The said FIR is stayed by this Court in WP No.8232/2022 by order dated 22.06.2022.

¶36

This Court in WP No.18066/2023 has dealt with similar issue. It is apt to extract relevant paragraph of the order,

¶37

"11. In furtherance of the afore-quoted statutory provision, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued a notification in Notification No.GSR570(E) on 25.08.1993, as to what must be done in cases where there are pending cases before the criminal court, against the holder of a passport. This is further clarified by another Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the relevant clause of which, reads as follows:

¶38

“(vi) In case where the secondary Police verification is also ‘Adverse’, it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant . It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.”

¶39

(Emphasis supplied)

¶40

The clarification is rendered by the Ministry of External Affairs that mere filing of FIR and cases under

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27334 WP No. 2004 of 2024

¶42

investigation would not come under the purview Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the criminal proceedings would only be considered when pending, and the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence, which would presuppose that the charge sheet has been filed by the Officer in-charge of a police station."

¶43

This Court in the judgment referred to supra by referring to Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs has held that mere filing of FIR would not attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, unless cognizance of the same is taken by the Court of law. It was further held that, if charge sheet is not filed and cognizance is not taken by the jurisdictional Court, the same is not a bar for issued of passport.

¶44

The above referred judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner is entitled to similar relief as ordered in WP No.18066/2023.

¶45