Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Lince Kandankeril Thomas – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6822 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.M.A.Zohra, Shri.Akbar Zaheer A.N., Smt.V.P.Sheeja
For the Respondents: Shri.P.V.Anoop, O.M.Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri.Phijo Pradeesh Philip, Smt.Surya Binoy, Sr.GP
No criminal case pending until court takes cognizance of offence post-charge sheet; passport reissue not impeded.
Headnote:The petitioner, holding an Indian passport and employed abroad, faced a complaint by his wife under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, leading to an FIR. A charge sheet was filed but not taken on file by the court, resulting in no pending criminal case. The court directed expeditious consideration of the passport reissue application. Issues framed included whether a criminal case is pending absent court cognizance post-charge sheet. The ratio decidendi holds that no criminal case subsists until court takes cognizance, removing impediments to passport reissue. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the passport authority.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. passport holder apprehends denial due to fir. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on no pending case without charge sheet. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. charge sheet filed but court not cognizant. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. no case pending; direct passport reissue. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the holder of an Indian passport and is presently employed in Australia. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). Ext.P1 is the First Information Report and Ext.P2 is the First Information Statement. The petitioner has applied for the reissue of passport. However, the petitioner apprehends that due to the pendency of criminal case, the 4th respondent may not reissue the passport.
2. Heard Smt.M.A.Zohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the learned Government Pleader and Sri.P.V.Anoop, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. The petitioner submits that though an FIR has been registered against him, no charge sheet has so far been filed and therefore, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner and consequently, there cannot be any impediment in reissuing the passport.
4. This Court, by order dated 01.04.2026, directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from the 2nd respondent as to whether a charge sheet has been submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 FIR and the present status of the case.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions received on 05.04.2026, submits that though a charge sheet was filed on 27.03.2026, the same has not yet been taken on file by the Court.
6. Since the Court has not so far taken cognizance of the offence, it cannot be said that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the application of the petitioner for reissue of passport cannot be rejected on the ground of pendency of the criminal case.
7. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the additional 4th respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for reissue of passport, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
