The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of a revision petition in relation to an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., and the petitioner's entitlement to passport renewal under Section 6(2)(F) of the Passport Act, 1967.

K. Natarajan, J.

This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.6392/2015 dated 07.01.2019 on IA filed by the petitioner herein.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner is accused No.4 before the trial Court in C.C.No.6392/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, where after taking the cognizance, the petitioner appeared before the Court as the accused. Later, the petitioner had obtained stay order from this Court by filing criminal petition for quashing the proceedings and in the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an IA under Section 6(2)(F) of the Passport Act, 1967 ('the Act' for brevity) before the trial Court herein. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, allowed the IA and directed the petitioner to approach the Passport Authority for obtaining the fresh passport vide order dated 27.09.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner had obtained the passport and visited abroad and the said passport has been issued by the Passport Authority for one year and after expiry of the said passport, the accused No.4 - petitioner herein, filed an Interlocutory application before the trial Court for renewal of the passport. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on impugned order dated 07.01.2019. The same is challenged by the petitioner herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court, while passing the order committed an error in holding that the said Court already passed a speaking order on 27.09.2017 and proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble High Court and holding that there is no significant ground made out for allowing the application is not correct. As per notification of the Government, there is a relaxation of condition for issuing the passport and also renewing the passport as per Section 6(2)(F) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is required to travel abroad for his professional work as an artist. Hence, prayed for allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Passport Authority vehemently objected mainly on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court is on the Interlocutory application which amounts to Interlocutory order there is a bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the revision cannot be entertained before this Court. The relief for the petitioner is elsewhere and also contended that as per Section 6(2)(F) of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for passport. Even otherwise, once the passport has been issued to the petitioner as per the provision of the Act, when criminal case is pending, the passport could be issued only for one year and for the purpose of renewal is permissible only when the petitioner not to travel abroad during the said one year. Therefore, even on the merits the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. Hence, prayed for dismissing the revision petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the records.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was accused No.4 before the trial Court in C.C.No.6392/2015 on the complaint filed by the respondent, a cognizance also taken by the accused. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing the criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and stay has been granted by this Court in criminal petition No.2343/2018. It is also an admitted fact that previously petitioner filed an application before the trial Court, which came to be allowed by the trial Court permitting the Passport Authority to issue Passport with two conditions that the accused shall not leave the country till disposal of the case and he shall appear before the Court on every date of hearing till disposal of the case.

8. Being aggrieved by the