Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Cr vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr on 14 November, 2025
Sr. No. 79
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CrlM No. 2169/2025 in
CRM(M) No. 1042/2023
CR
.....Petitioner(s)
Kanta Andotra
Through: Mr. R.K Kotwal, Advocate with
Mr. F.A Mir, Advocate
Vs
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG
Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
14.11.2025 CrlM No. 2169/2025
1. Through the medium of the instant application, the applicant/petitioner Kanta Andotra, aged 61 years W/o Ch. Lal Singh, R/o H.No. 01, Ward No.02, Kathua, seeks permission for her scheduled visit to Dubai (UAE) on 18.11.2025, on the grounds that this Court vide its Order dated 13.12.2023, already passed in the main petition has stayed the proceedings in the charge-sheet pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI Cases, Jammu. That she is not required to attend the learned trial Court in view of the pendency of the petition before this Court. That the learned trial Court is not also competent to take cognizance of this application on account of the fact that this Court is seized of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in which proceedings on the trial case stand stayed. That she alongwith her some relatives is scheduled to leave India for going to Dubai 2 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 (UAE) for a family tour. That she will leave India on 18.11.2025 and will return from Dubai (UAE) on 22.11.2025.
2. It is submitted by Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG accompanied with Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI that objections to the instant application have been filed with the Registry, which, however, are not found placed on the digital file of the instant case. The learned Sr. AAG, however, furnished to the Court the original of the application which is retained for being placed on the physical as well as the digital file of the case.
3. The instant application has been resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the same is not maintainable in its present form as the petitioner has failed to avail an alternate and efficacious remedy available to her before the learned trial Court that had imposed some reasonable conditions while enlarging her on bail. That the petitioner is facing prosecution in a serious case registered by the respondent-Organization involving the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 218, 409 Ranbir Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt.2006. That investigation has revealed a well planned conspiracy involving encroachment and illegal retention of large tracts of Government and Forest land in violation of the provisions of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. That the gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the petitioner, being the Chairperson of the R. B. Educational Trust, clearly disentitles her from seeking discretionary relief of travelling abroad during the pendency of criminal proceedings. That the reasons assigned by the petitioner for seeking permission to travel to Dubai (UAE) for a family tour are neither compelling nor unavoidable. That the stated purpose does not 3 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 fall within the category of legitimate ground such as medical emergency, urgent family necessity or official business requirements. That right to travel abroad is not absolute, particularly when serious criminal charges are pending and the trial is yet to reach its logical conclusion. That there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may not return to India after travelling abroad or may attempt to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence while being outside the territory of India. That the present petition appears to be an attempt to misuse the indulgence of this Court at a time when the investigation and related matters are under judicial scrutiny. That the order of re-investigation dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu has been challenged by the CBI in CRM(M) No. 830/2023 which is pending adjudication before this Court. That quashment petition filed by the present petitioner bearing CRM(M) No. 1042/2023 is also sub-judice in this Court. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, any relaxation in terms of permitting the petitioner to travel abroad would adversely affect the fair and impartial administration of justice, therefore, the present petition deserves to be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsels on both the sides.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner along with some of her relatives is scheduled to go to Dubai (UAE) for family holiday and she has annexed self-attested copies of the Air-Tickets with the application. He further submitted that the petitioner shall leave India on 18.11.2025 and will return back from Dubai (UAE) on 22.11.2025. 4 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner as a law abiding citizen of the Country has sought the permission from this Court in connection with her proposed visit outside the India. He further submitted that the petitioner has apprehension that due to the pendency of the criminal cases in which she has been arrayed as co-accused/co-Respondent, she may not be allowed to go to abroad without the permission of this Court. He contended that since the matter is presently sub-judice in this Court by way of two petitions, one filed by the petitioner for quashment of criminal proceedings [CRM(M) No. 1042/2023] and the other filed by the respondent-Organization (Central Bureau of Investigation) impugning the re-investigation order of the trial Court [CRM(M) No. 830/2023], as such, the petitioner has bonafidely approached this Court seeking necessary permission.
6. Per Contra, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General accompanied with the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India contended that the application filed by the petitioner merits out-right rejection as no sufficient and genuine cause has been shown for going abroad. She submitted that the apprehension of violation of the bail conditions already granted to the petitioner by the learned trial Court cannot be ruled out on account of her involvement in serious charges.
7. Keeping in view of the perusal of the instant application, memo of objections filed by the respondent-agency, perusal of the record of the main petition CRM(M) No. 1042/2023 and the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by this Court on the same whereby proceedings in case FIR No.RC0042020A0005 dated 12.09.2020 of the respondent-Bureau read 5 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 with final report/charge-sheet No.1 dated 28.10.2021 has been stayed, this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in case the petitioner is permitted to go abroad on her scheduled visit to Dubai (UAE) involving the period w.e.f 18.11.2025 to 22.11.2025. The trial in the main criminal case has suffered a halt pursuant to the passing of the order dated 27.03.2023 by the learned trial Court followed by the pendency of the aforementioned petitions before this Court. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner as a co-accused in the case has violated any conditions of the bail reported to have been already earlier granted in her favour in the case. The permission to be accorded by this Court is limited in its scope to the extent of pendency of the criminal matters.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments inter alia submitted that even the learned trial Court i.e Special Judge Anti- Corruption, CBI Cases, Jammu has not yet taken cognizance on the final report/charge-sheet of the respondent-Bureau. He submitted that the learned trial Court instead passed the order dated 27.03.2023 directing re- investigation in the case.
9. Sub Section (1) of Section 6 of the Passport Act clearly provides that application for grant or renewal of passport shall be refused only on the grounds mentioned in the Section and on no other ground. Apart from other grounds, Clause (f) of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 provides that request for grant or renewal of passport or travel documents can be refused, if proceedings in respect of an 6 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India.
10. The criminal proceedings commence before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction only when a final report is laid by the investigating agency before the Court or in case of a private complaint, when the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance and proceeds in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. It is true that a Notification issued by the Central Government under No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 allows for issuance of an Indian Pass-port to an applicant even if a criminal case pending against him/her subject to explicit permission from the criminal Court.
12. A learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has already dealt with an alike matter and it is profitable to re-produce the relevant paras of the judgment passed in the said case titled "Rajesh Gupta vs Union of India & Anr", [WP(C) No.1534/2022, date of decision 23.11.2022], for the sake of convenience:-
"8. Indisputably, the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this Country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is so authoritatively held in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and another AIR 1978 SC 597and, therefore, this right can only be curtailed by imposing restrictions as are authorized by law. The Passport Act is an Act of Parliament that deals with the issue of passports and travel documents to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for the matters incidental or ancillary 7 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 thereto. Section 5 of the Passport Act deals with applications, to be submitted for obtaining passports, travel documents and other orders thereon. The refusal of the passport or travel documents is dealt with by Section6ofthePassportAct, which for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:-
"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause(b)or clause(c)of sub- section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India:
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country,
(d) thatin the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant 8 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
(f) thatproceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
(g) thata warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
(i) thatin the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest."
9. Sub Section (1) of Section 6 of the Passport Act clearly provides that application for grant or renewal of passport shall be refused only on the grounds mentioned in the Section and on no other ground. Apart from other grounds, Clause (f) of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 provides that request for grant or renewal of passport or travel documents can be refused, if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India.
10. Mere registration of an FIR or pendency of investigation by the Investigating Agency is no ground to refuse issue or renewal of passport requested by the applicant. At this 9 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 stage, when FIR alone is registered and investigation is undertaken by the Investigating Agency, there are no proceedings before a criminal Court. The criminal proceedings commence before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction only when a final report is laid by the investigating agency before the Court or in case of a private complaint, when the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance and proceeds in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Till such eventuality happens, we cannot say that there are criminal proceedings pending in the Court. If that be the clear and unequivocal position emerging from the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is not even an iota of doubt that registration of FIR and the investigation taken thereupon by the investigating agency cannot be said to be the proceedings pending before a criminal Court in India to attract disqualification laid down in Clause (f) of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act.
11. To the similar effect are the provisions of Section10 of the Passport Act, which deal with variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. Under Section 10 of the Passport Act, the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document, if apart from others, it is brought to its notice that the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel documents are pending before a criminal Court in India. This is so provided in Clause (e) of Sub Section (3) of Section 10. Clause (h) of Sub Section (3) of Section 10 further provides that the passport already issued can be impounded or revoked by the passport authority, if it is brought to its notice that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such 10 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 Court.
12. The issue as to when can the proceedings be said to be pending before the Criminal Court was considered by the Madras High Court in Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, AIR 2015 Mad 3 and it was held that no proceedings can be said to have been initiated under Clause (a) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless cognizance is taken by the Court for proceeding further in the matter.
13. In the aforesaid case, Madras High Court found that all criminal complaints as against the applicant were only at the stage of investigation and, therefore, it was not a case of the passport authorities that final reports have been filed in the criminal Court in any of the criminal complaint so as to make the case come within the four corners of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Similar order passed by the passport authorities was set aside by the Madras High Court''.
13. This Court in its opinion feels fortified with the authoritative law cited as (i) "Suresh Nanda vs CBI & Ors" 2008(3) SCC 674, (ii) "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs Central Bureau of Investigation" decided on 27.09.2021, (iii) "Sumit Mehta vs State of NCT of Delhi" 2013 (15) SCC 570 and (iv) "Ganni Bhaskara Rao vs Union of India & Anr" 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).
14. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to have her visit abroad Dubai (UAE) as per the scheduled time mentioned by her and involving the period w.e.f 18.11.2025 to 22.11.2025 without being objected on the ground of pendency of the criminal matters before the learned trial Court as well as this Court arising out of FIR No.RC0042020A0005 dated 12.09.2020 of the respondent-Bureau, 11 CrlM No.2169/2025 in CRM(M) No.1042/2023 however, subject to the other conditions being fulfilled. This permission touching the pendency of the criminal matters shall also be subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish personal and surety bonds in the amount of ₹1.00 lac each to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar Judicial of this court for assuring that she shall not violate the conditions of bail orders reported to have been earlier granted in her favour.
(ii) That she shall furnish a scanned copy of her pass-port before the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court.
(iii) That she shall furnish a complete itinerary of her travel to the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court.
In case the requisite surety and personal bonds are furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court, a certified copy of this order shall be issued to the petitioner.
15. Application is disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani) Judge Jammu 14.11.2025 Vijay Whether the order is reportable: Yes Vijay Kumar 2025.10.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document