SYED ASHFAQ AHMED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6203 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SYED ASHFAQ AHMED
AGED 54 YEARS,
SON OF SYED SHUJAUDDIN HASSAN,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.1 AND 2, UZAIRA MANZIL,
4TH CROSS, JAMIA NAGAR,
ARABIC COLLEGE MAIN ROAD,
KADUGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. REGO L P E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BHARATHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 005
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MS. VANAMALA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER,
BENGALURU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
THROUGH REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
BENGALURU, NO.80 FEET ROAD,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.SHARATH DODAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
10.08.2022 U/S 419, 420 OF IPC R/W SEC.12(1)(B) OF
PASSPORTS ACT, 1967 FILED BY THE BHARATHI NAGAR P.S.,
IN C.C.NO.57509/2022, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 10TH ACM,
BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings in CC No.57509/2022, arising out of Crime
No.139/2021 dated 15.09.2021, filed by the Bharathi Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
12(1)(B) of Passport Act, 1967 pending on the file of XI ACMM
Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
21.10.2020, alleging that the petitioner had initially obtained
an Indian passport bearing No.Z3113783, issued on
08.01.2015 and valid upto 07.01.2025. It was further alleged
that the petitioner had also obtained another passport bearing
No.Z2611202, issued on 09.07.2013 and valid upto
08.07.2023. On coming to know of the said fact, respondent
No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police.
Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1 registered a case
in Crime No.358/2020 on 12.11.2020 for the offences stated
supra . Subsequently, for want of jurisdiction, the case was
transferred to Bharathi Nagar Police Station and renumbered as
Crime No.139/2021 for the same offences. After investigation,
the said Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the
aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioner primarily contended that respondent No.1
invoked Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, without
obtaining the requisite sanction from either the Central
Government or the State Government, as contemplated under
the notification dated 01.12.1979. In the instant case, no such
sanction was obtained by respondent No.1-Police before filing
the final report. Hence, the order taking cognizance is liable to
be set aside. He further contended that, on perusal of the
charge-sheet materials, the ingredients of Sections 419 and
420 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner, as the
petitioner was in possession of the second passport only after
the expiry of the first passport. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the petition.
5. The said prayer is opposed by the learned HCGP on the
ground that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the
materials on record prima facie disclose the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC by
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
the petitioner. However, he fairly submits that, while filing the
charge-sheet, the Police had not obtained the requisite sanction
under Section 15 of the Passports Act.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission and perused the charge sheet materials.
7. As could be gathered from the complaint averments, the
primary allegation against the petitioner is that he was in
possession of two Indian passports at the same time.
Accordingly, respondent No.1-Police invoked Section 12(1)(b)
of the Passports Act, 1967. On a careful reading of Section 15
of the Passports Act, it is evident that, before filing the charge-
sheet for an offence punishable under the provisions of the said
Act, the Police are required to obtain the requisite sanction
either from the Central Government or from the State
Government, as contemplated under the notification dated
01.12.1979. Section 15 of the Passport Act reads as under:
"15. Previous sanction of Central Government
necessary.__ No prosecution shall be instituted
against any person in respect of any offence under
this Act without the previous sanction of the Central
Government or such officer or authority as may be
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
authorised by that Government by order in writing in
this behalf."
8. On a careful reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear
that, before filing the charge-sheet for an offence under the
Passports Act, the Police are required to obtain the requisite
sanction under Section 15 of the said Act. No doubt, the Central
Government, vide notification dated 01.12.1979, delegated
such power to the State Government. However, in the instant
case, no such sanction has been obtained from the competent
authority. Such being the position, the order taking cognizance,
in the absence of the requisite sanction, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, it
would suffice to hold that the order taking cognizance is liable
to be quashed for want of the requisite sanction alone.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .
ii. The proceedings in CC No.57509/2022, arising
out of Crime No.139/2021 dated 15.09.2021,
filed by the Bharathi Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru City, against the petitioner for the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55158
CRL.P No. 6203 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010347362024
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of
IPC, Section 12(1)(B) of Passport Act, 1967
pending on the file of XI ACMM Bengaluru, are
hereby quashed.
iii. However, the prosecution is at liberty to
proceed after obtaining necessary sanction in
accordance with law.
iv. Petitioner is at liberty to file necessary
application for release of his passport before
the Trial Court.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13