Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31141
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
M.S.N Babu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2974 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satish K
For the Respondents: Reshma K. Thammaiah, Navya Shekar
Mere registration of an FIR or pendency of investigation does not constitute a criminal proceeding 'pending' against an applicant under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; such proceedings are only deemed pending once a court has taken formal cognizance of the offence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Right to travel abroad - Statutory restrictions - Pendency of criminal proceedings - Mere registration of FIR or pendency of investigation does not attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 - Criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a competent court has taken cognizance of the offence - Denial of No Objection Certificate (NOC) solely on the ground of pending FIRs, particularly where proceedings are stayed by the High Court, is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the rejection of his application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for a passport. The rejection was based solely on the pendency of two criminal cases, despite the High Court having granted an interim stay on further proceedings in both matters.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that a mechanical rejection of NOC without considering the judicial stay and the settled legal position regarding the meaning of "pending" criminal proceedings in the context of the Passports Act is unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the issuance of the NOC.
Issues: Whether the pendency of an FIR, where proceedings are stayed by a competent court, constitutes a valid ground to deny a No Objection Certificate for obtaining a passport.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere registration of an FIR or investigation does not constitute a pending criminal proceeding under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act; cognizance by a court is the threshold requirement. Restricting travel rights based on such FIRs is disproportionate and violates the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to denial of noc due to pending firs where investigations are stayed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. interpretation of 'pending' criminal proceedings under the passports act, 1967 and impact on article 21 rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. formal relief granted by quashing the restrictive order and mandating processing of the passport application. (Para 13) |
WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 07/01/2026 (ANNEXURE-K) 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
1. The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a) CALL for records from the Respondent No.2 in respect of the impugned letter dated 07.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-K);
b) SSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned letter dated 07.01.2026 bearing No.SiAaaSuE 105 KAaaHo 2021 issued by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE-K) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT the Respondent No.2 to issue No Objection Certificate for the purpose of obtaining Passport from the Respondent No.3 and DIRECT the Respondent No.1 and 3 to issue Passport in favour of the Petitioner, forthwith, at any rate within a period of 15 days, in the interest of justice and equity.
c) PASS any such other Order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, including the cost of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner, who initially entered service as a Tahasildar by way of direct recruitment on 13.01.2006, has, over the course of his service career, earned promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner. At present, the petitioner is embroiled in two criminal proceedings registered against him, namely, Crime No.31/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Crime No.8/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, as also Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. These proceedings, though pending on the file of the jurisdictional court, are presently not being proceeded with in view of the interim orders passed by this Court.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has assailed the initiation and continuation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and this Court, upon consideration of the prima facie grounds urged, has been pleased to grant an order of stay of further proceedings in both the aforesaid crimes, as evidenced at Annexures-C and G. In the interregnum, the petitioner, being desirous of travelling abroad, submitted an application seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the second respondent–Department. However, the said request has been declined by issuance of an endorsement as per Annexure-K, wherein the sole ground assigned for rejection is the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the authority has failed to take into consideration the material fact that further proceedings in both the criminal cases have been stayed by this Court. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that mere registration of an FIR, particularly when the proceedings emanating therefrom are interdicted by a judicial order, cannot constitute a valid or lawful ground to deny issuance of a No Objection Certificate, thereby indirec
