Karnataka High Court
Sri. Pramila Yeshwant Jain vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19753
WP No. 10115 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 10115 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAMILA YESHWANT JAIN,
W/O YESHWANT JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.29,
KRISHNA RAO SINDIA ROAD,
VV PURA, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY
by
SHARADAVANI EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK,
B
Location: High SECRETARIAT BUILDING, RAISINA HILL,
Court of
Karnataka NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RESHMA K T., CGSC FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19753
WP No. 10115 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT OR ORDER
BY QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 6-3-2026 VIDE NO. OBJ-
1054048880/2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT
ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari assailing the letter dated 06.03.2026 issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-G, thereby declining to consider the petitioner's application for issuance of a passport unless the petitioner furnishes closure of criminal proceeding.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned AGA.
3. A perusal of the material placed on record would indicate that a private complaint came to be instituted against the petitioner under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in PCR No.14091/2017. Pursuant to the said complaint, the jurisdictional police conducted an investigation and submitted a 'B' report, as evidenced at Annexure-D, -3- NC: 2026:KHC:19753 WP No. 10115 of 2026 HC-KAR concluding that no case was made out against the petitioner. However, notwithstanding the submission of the 'B' report, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the alleged offences, and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner has called in question the said order of cognizance before this Court in Criminal Petition No.4866/2023. It is not in dispute that this Court, by order dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure-F), has stayed further proceedings in the said criminal case, and the said interim order continues to operate as on date.
4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is required to examine the legality of the impugned endorsement/communication at Annexure-G, whereby the petitioner's request for issuance of a passport has been declined. This Court finds that the issue is no longer res integra. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.9594/2025 (Annexure-J), while dealing with an identical question concerning refusal of passport on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, has categorically held that mere registration of an FIR or pendency of investigation would -4- NC: 2026:KHC:19753 WP No. 10115 of 2026 HC-KAR not attract the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Co-ordinate Bench, placing reliance on the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has further held that where criminal proceedings are stayed by a competent Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), such proceedings cannot be construed as "pending" so as to disentitle an applicant from seeking issuance of a passport.
5. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case on hand, this Court finds that though cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, the said proceedings have been stayed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4866/2023. In view of the subsisting stay order, the criminal proceedings cannot be treated as operative or pending in the eye of law for the purpose of invoking Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. Consequently, the action of the respondents in refusing to process the petitioner's application for issuance of passport, as reflected in Annexure-G, is unsustainable and contrary to the settled position of law.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:19753 WP No. 10115 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference and is entitled to the relief sought in the present writ petition. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) The impugned communication/endorsement bearing Annexure-G is quashed;
(iii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the second respondent to consider and process the petitioner's application for issuance of passport, in accordance with law;
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11