Karnataka High Court
Sesha Sai Rajesh Dittakavi vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19508
WP No. 1937 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 1937 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
SESHA SAI RAJESH DITTAKAVI
S/O SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD DITTAKAVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO 518,4TH CROSS,
SUBBANAPALYA EXTN,
BANASWADI, MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560043
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A REP BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHAWAN,
JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110011
2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
8TH BLOCK,
80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560095
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY-I, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19508
WP No. 1937 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
K.G. HALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 045
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR
SMT. RESHMA KT., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY ISSUE A
CLEARANCE REPORT IN VIEW OF THE B REPORT FILED BY
THEM 06/05/2021 FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY GRANT A LONG VALIDITY
PASSPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDER TO DIRECT THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY
ISSUE A CLEARANCE REPORT IN VIEW OF THE B REPORT FILED
BY THEM 06/05/2021 FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY GRANT A LONG VALIDITY
PASSPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TO THE PETITIONER
HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to issue a clearance report in the light of the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Agency and consequently -3- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR direct the respondents to grant a regular passport to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts, as borne out from the pleadings, indicate that a private complaint came to be lodged by one Sayyed Sami Ulla in February 2016 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the averments made in the complaint, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(for short "Cr.P.C."), by order dated 02.03.2016.
The Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, submitted a 'B' report on 06.05.2021. Upon receipt of the 'B' report, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant. It is forthcoming from the order sheet that though the complainant was served, the proceedings were repeatedly adjourned at the instance of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR the complainant's counsel for filing of a protest petition and for hearing on the 'B' report.
3. The chronology of proceedings would indicate that from 23.03.2023 onwards, the matter was adjourned on several occasions i.e., on 08.06.2023, 12.12.2023, 01.02.2024, 07.06.2024, 19.08.2024 and 23.11.2024, primarily on account of requests made by the complainant's counsel seeking time. On multiple dates, the complainant remained absent. Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to 27.06.2025 granting a last opportunity. On 21.08.2025, the counsel appearing for the complainant submitted before the learned Magistrate that the complainant had expired and sought time to bring the legal heirs on record. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 11.09.2025. However, from 11.09.2025 onwards, no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased complainant on record nor has any protest petition been pursued. The proceedings, thus, remain in a -5- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR state of limbo with the 'B' report neither accepted nor rejected.
4. In the interregnum, the petitioner applied for issuance of a passport. The respondent-Regional Passport Officer sought clarification regarding the pendency of the criminal case. Subsequently, the application was closed. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.5863/2025, which came to be disposed of on 05.03.2025 directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application and directing the respondent-authorities to consider the same in accordance with law.
5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh application. The respondents, however, issued only a short validity passport valid up to 01.06.2026. The grievance of the petitioner is that issuance of a short validity passport severely prejudices his prospects, as several countries do not grant visa on the basis of such -6- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR limited validity, thereby depriving him of employment opportunities.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once a 'B' report has been filed and the same has not culminated in cognizance being taken by the Magistrate, the mere pendency of proceedings at the stage of consideration of 'B' report cannot be treated as a criminal case so as to deny issuance of a regular passport. He would further submit that in the event cognizance is taken at a later stage, it is always open to the authorities to impose appropriate conditions or seek modification. Petitioner further contends that several countries do not entertain visa applications on the basis of a short validity passport, thereby effectively curtailing the petitioner's right to livelihood, which is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of -7- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR India1, it is contended that pendency of criminal proceedings is not an absolute bar for issuance or renewal of passport, particularly when no restriction order is passed by a competent Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in C. Sudheendra Kamath vs. Union of India in W.P. No.5295/2026 decided on 27.2.2026, would contend that where a 'B' report is filed and a protest petition is pending consideration, the competent authority is justified in issuing only a short validity passport, as the proceedings have not attained finality.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the peculiar facts of the present case require careful consideration. 1 2025 INSC 1476 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR
10. It is not in dispute that the Investigating Agency has filed a 'B' report as early as on 06.05.2021. It is also not in dispute that till date, the learned Magistrate has neither accepted nor rejected the said 'B' report. The order sheet clearly discloses that the matter has been adjourned repeatedly over a prolonged period, initially at the instance of the complainant and subsequently on account of the death of the complainant.
11. The petitioner, a qualified professional holding an MBA degree along with a certification in Global Project Management, is admittedly subjected to criminal proceedings initiated as far back as in the year 2016 by way of a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC. The record would further disclose that upon reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency, after completion of investigation, has filed a 'B' report in the year 2021. From the date of filing of the 'B' report till August 2025, the original -9- NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR complainant, though alive, did not choose to file any protest petition, despite being afforded sufficient opportunities by the learned Magistrate. Even subsequent to the demise of the complainant, though the learned counsel sought time to bring the legal representatives on record and to prosecute the matter, no protest petition has been filed till date. Thus, for nearly four years from the date of filing of the 'B' report, there has been no effective prosecution of the complaint.
12. In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine the scheme of the Act. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport's Act, 1967 (for short 'Act, 1967') empowers the Passport Authority to refuse issuance of a passport where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court. Likewise, Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, 1967 enables the authority to impound or revoke a passport if proceedings in respect of an offence are pending. However, the expression "proceedings pending before a
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR criminal Court" cannot be construed in a mechanical or pedantic manner so as to include a situation where the criminal law has, for all practical purposes, come to a standstill. The object underlying these provisions is to ensure that a person who is actively facing criminal prosecution is available to answer the charges and does not evade the process of law.
13. In the present case, admittedly, no cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The matter is still at the stage of consideration of a 'B' report. The complainant, during his lifetime, did not pursue the matter by filing a protest petition for a substantial period of nearly two years. Even thereafter, upon his demise, the legal representatives have not chosen to prosecute the complaint. The proceedings, therefore, remain in a state of complete dormancy, solely on account of repeated adjournments granted by the learned Magistrate. Such a situation, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be equated with pendency of a criminal case in its true sense
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR so as to attract the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, 1967.
14. It is also to be noticed that issuance of a short validity passport is a measure adopted by the Passport Authorities to balance competing interests, namely, the right of a citizen to travel abroad and the necessity of securing his presence in pending criminal proceedings. However, such restriction must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In a case of the present nature, where there is no active prosecution, no cognizance, and no steps taken by the complainant or his legal heirs for an inordinate period of time, the apprehension that the petitioner would evade trial in anticipation that magistrate on receipt of protest may reject 'B' report and take cognizance is wholly illusory.
15. On the contrary, denial of a regular passport would result in serious prejudice to the petitioner, who is a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR professional whose employment obligations necessitate frequent international travel.
16. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the Passport Authorities in issuing only a short validity passport solely on the ground that the 'B' report has not yet been formally accepted by the learned Magistrate is wholly unsustainable. The authorities have failed to appreciate that the so-called pendency of proceedings is merely illusory and does not constitute a real or effective criminal prosecution so as to justify curtailment of the petitioner's rights under the Act, 1967
17. In such circumstances, the mere pendency of proceedings at the stage of consideration of a 'B' report, particularly when the complainant himself is no more and no legal representatives have chosen to prosecute the matter, cannot be equated with pendency of a criminal
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR case where cognizance has been taken or trial is in progress.
18. The object of issuing a short validity passport is to balance the interest of the individual with the requirement of ensuring that persons facing criminal prosecution are available for trial. However, in the present case, there is no order of any competent Court restraining the petitioner from travelling abroad nor is there any material to indicate that cognizance has been taken.
19. This Court is also mindful of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), wherein it is held that pendency of criminal proceedings by itself does not constitute an absolute bar and the authorities are required to consider the facts of each case.
20. In the peculiar facts of the present case, where the 'B' report has remained pending consideration for years together without any progress and in the absence of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR any effective prosecution by filing protest petition, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents in restricting the validity of the passport requires reconsideration.
21. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for issuance of regular passport, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
(iii) While undertaking such consideration, the respondents shall take note of the fact that the 'B' report is pending without any progress and that no cognizance has been taken as on date.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19508 WP No. 1937 of 2026 HC-KAR
(iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) It is made clear that in the event cognizance is taken by the competent Court in future, it would be open to the respondents to impose appropriate conditions in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99