SRI NAGENDRAPPA T vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
R
Reserved on : 22.09.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24641 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11258 OF 2026
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11265 OF 2026
IN WP No. 24641/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGENDRAPPA T.,
S/O TOPANNA SHIROOR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 13/89,
G.RAMESH REDDY LAYOUT,
MYLASANDRA,
BENGALURU – 560 068.
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI GIRISH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELLANDURU PS,
- 2 -
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BELLANDURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU – 560 102.
4. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI – 110 001.
5. THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL
REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)
TH
5 FLOOR, A BLOCK,
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
6.
SMT. NASREENA
W/O MOHAMMAD BILAL,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR DS MAX APARTMENTS,
- 3 -
HADOSIDDAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 035
ORIGINAL RESIDENT OF:
RAJAPUR VILLAGE,
WEST RAJAPUR POST,
SHARAN KOLLA RANDHA PS,
BAGHEERA DISTRICT,
BANGLADESH 9300
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W
SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGSC FOR R-4 AND R-5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 AND 529 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ARREST OF THE
PETITIONER ON 23.07.2026 AT 2.00 P.M. IN CRIME NO. 343/2026
OF BELLANDURU P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 74, 126 (2), 115 (2), 79, 352, 351 (2) AND 351 (3) OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 UNDER ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY, TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER COMPENSATION FOR THE
UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S PERSONAL LIBERTY; C.
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 4
AND 5 TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND TIME-BOUND STEPS FOR THE
NATIONALITY VERIFICATION AND DEPORTATION OF RESPONDENT
NO. 6 AND ALL OTHER ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, AND TO FILE A
COMPLIANCE REPORT BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.
IN CRL.P NO. 11258/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGENDRAPPA T.,
S/O TOPANNA SHIROOR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
- 4 -
RESIDING AT NO.13/89
G.RAMESH REDDY LAYOUT
MYLASANDRA
BENGALURU – 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELLANDURU PS
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI NASREENA
W/O MOHAMMED BILAL
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR DS MAX APARTMENTS
HADOSIDDAPURA
BENGALURU – 560 035
ORIGINAL RESIDENT OF
RAJAPUR VILLAGE,
WEST RAJPUR POST
SHARAN KOLLA RANDHA PS
BAGHEERA DISTRICT,
BANGLADESH 9330.
3.
THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL
REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)
TH
5 FLOOR, A BLOCK,
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING,
- 5 -
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
(AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 28.07.2026)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1;
SRI ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W
SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGSC FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.343/2026 REGISTERED BY THE BELLANDURU POLICE
STATION, BENGLAURU FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 74, 126(2),
115(2), 79, 352, 351(2) AND 351(3) OF BNS 2023
st
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND B PENDING BEFORE 41
ACJM AT BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO. 11265/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGENDRAPPA T.,
S/O TOPANNA SHIROOR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER (DOCTOR)
AND SOCIAL WORKER
RESIDING AT NO.13/89
G.RAMESH REDDY LAYOUT
MYLASADRA, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA – 560 068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATES)
- 6 -
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION
MARATHAHALLI SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI MOHAMMED SAIDUL ISLAM
S/O SRI IZUL ISLAM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
C/O MUNIRAJU LABOUR SHED
KODATHI VILLAGE
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU EAST
KARNATAKA – 560 035.
3.
THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL
REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)
TH
5 FLOOR, A BLOCK,
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
(AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 28.07.2026)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1;
SRI ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W
- 7 -
SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGSC FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING PLEASED
TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.488/2026
DATED 18.07.2026 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CJM(ACJM),
BENGALURU RURAL REGISTERED BY VARTHUR P.S., FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) AND 352
R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, AS PER DOCUMENT
NOs.1 AND 2.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 22.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, in all these cases, is common, but the
complainants in the criminal petitions differ. In Criminal Petition
No.11265 of 2026, the challenge is to the registration of a crime in
Crime No.488 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under
Section 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. In
Criminal Petition No.11258 of 2026, the challenge is to the crime in
Crime No.343 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under
- 8 -
Sections 74, 79, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of the
BNS. Writ Petition No.24641 of 2026 is preferred seeking the
following prayer:
a. “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other wit/order setting
aside the arrest of the petitioner on 23-07-2026 at 2.00
p.m. in Crime No.343 of 2026 of Bellanduru P.S. for the
offences punishable under Sections 74, 126(2), 115(2),
79, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 under arrest without warrant produced at Annexure-
H;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to
3, jointly and severally to pay to the petitioner
compensation for the unlawful deprivation of petitioner’s
personal liberty;
c. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1, 4
and 5 to take all necessary and time-bound steps for the
nationality verification and deportation of Respondent
No.6 and all other illegal immigrants and to file a
compliance report before this Court.
d. Pass any other order this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances.”
2. The two criminal petitions call in question the very crimes
so registered in Crime Nos.343 of 2026 and 448 of 2026 and the
writ petition seeks compensation for unlawful deprivation of
petitioner’s personal liberty in Crime No.343 of 2026. The petitioner
is the common accused in all the three petitions, therefore, all the
three are taken up together and considered by this common order.
- 9 -
3. Heard in all the petitions Sri Girish Bharadwaj , learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha , learned
State Public Prosecutor – I appearing for the State and Sri Arvind
Kamath , learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for
the Union of India.
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
4.1. The petitioner, a medical practitioner by profession is
also engaged in issues of social and public interest. The petitioner
receives information that large number of foreign nationals
belonging to Bangladesh had constructed labour sheds or makeshift
sheds behind Government School at Kodathi Village, Sarjapur Main
Road. The petitioner then dials emergency helpline at 1.39 p.m. on
18-07-2026 and reports the matter and later the petitioner along
with the Police come to the spot. On the arrival of the Police, a
number of persons flee the spot apprehending detention on account
nd
of their illegal stay in the city. The 2 respondent in Criminal
Petition No.11265 of 2026, based on the said incident, seeks to
register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police – Varthur Police
Station on several grounds, including alleged assault by the
- 10 -
petitioner upon him. This becomes a crime in Crime No.488 of
2026. The complainant does not stop at that, but asks one
Nasreena, who is the complainant in the companion petitions, to
register a complaint adding offences punishable under Sections 74
and 79 of the BNS, which becomes a crime in Crime No.343 of 2026
before the Bellanduru Police Station, both of which come under
Marathahalli Sub-Division. Therefore, the two illegal immigrants
from Bangladesh who are staying in the city illegally without any
piece of paper or document seek to register crimes against the
petitioner who sought to project the stay of illegal immigrants to
the Police. Upon registration of the subject crimes, the petitioner is
before the Court calling in question the very registration of the
crimes.
4.2. This Court, on 28-07-2026 in Criminal Petition No.11258
of 2026 passed the following order:
“Heard Sri Girish Bharadwaj, learned counsel for
petitioner.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader waives notice
to respondent No.1 and learned State Public Prosecutor – 1 is
directed to make submission in the matter.
- 11 -
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of
the petition papers upon the learned High Court Government
Pleader, forthwith.
ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2026
4. The petitioner is before this Court, now arrayed as an
accused in Crime No.343 of 2026, registered at the instance of
one Nasreena, who, it is not in dispute, is an immigrant from
Bangladesh, allegedly residing within the precincts of this city
without any authority of law.
5. The foundational facts are neither disputed nor
obscure. Respondent No.2 admittedly possesses no document
authorising her to stay within the territory of this Nation. The
Investigating Officer, who was then engaged in the inquiry
concerning illegal immigrants, at 11.30 a.m. on 22.07.2026 ,
addressed a communication to the Foreigners Regional
Registration Office (FRRO) recording that the complainant
was an illegal immigrant residing in the city and recommending
that she be lodged in a detention centre pending her deportation
beyond the shores of this country.
6. The genesis of the said communication to the FRRO lies
in the information furnished by the present petitioner, who had
brought to the notice of the authorities that the complainant,
along with others, was residing in the city as an illegal
immigrant. Strikingly, within a fleeting span of fifteen minutes ,
at 11.45 a.m. , the very same complainant appeared before the
jurisdictional police and lodged the impugned complaint alleging
that the petitioner had assaulted her. The chronology of events
speaks louder than words. At 11.30 a.m. , the Investigating
Officer had not noticed, much less recorded, any injury upon the
complainant. Yet, within the next fifteen minutes, a criminal
case springs into existence. The timing of the complaint, viewed
in juxtaposition with the communication to the FRRO, prima
facie portrays it as nothing but a retaliatory counterblast to the
petitioner's act of bringing the complainant's illegal presence in
the country to the notice of the authorities.
7. Matters assume a more disturbing complexion
thereafter. The moment the complaint came to be registered,
- 12 -
the police machinery swung into action with unusual alacrity.
The petitioner was taken into custody and deprived of his
liberty, only to be released on the following day. The sequence
of events, at least at this stage, presents a textbook illustration
of how the coercive powers of criminal law can be pressed into
service in aid of a complaint which bears the unmistakable
imprint of retaliation rather than genuine grievance. Few
instances could better exemplify an abuse of the process of law.
8. Equally baffling is the manner in which the crime itself
came to be registered. Even a plain reading of the complaint
does not disclose any discernible infliction of injury. Yet, the
criminal law was set in motion without the most elementary
scrutiny. Courts cannot remain oblivious to situations where the
criminal justice system is employed, not as an instrument to
redress legitimate wrongs, but as a shield to protect those
whose very presence in the country is under serious legal cloud,
while simultaneously turning the sword of prosecution against
the individual who had brought such illegality to the notice of
the competent authorities. Such a course, if permitted, would
erode public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
9. The complaint itself is dated 22.07.2026 .
Significantly, while the complainant describes her place of
residence as Bengaluru, she simultaneously discloses herself to
be a resident of Bangladesh. This circumstance, by itself, ought
to have prompted the Station House Officer to undertake a
preliminary verification as to the authenticity of the allegations
and the surrounding circumstances before hastening to arrest
the petitioner. The liberty of a citizen cannot become collateral
damage in the wake of a complaint that demanded careful
scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor shall secure instructions as to how such a
crime came to be registered in the complete absence of any
medical examination or contemporaneous material disclosing
injury, and as to how the petitioner was taken into custody on
the strength of a complaint which, at least prima facie, appears
to be bereft of credibility.
- 13 -
11. Therefore, there shall be an interim order staying
further investigation in Crime No.343 of 2026 registered by
the Bellanduru Police Station, now pending on the file of the
41st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru , until
further orders of this Court.
12. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office
(FRRO) shall be impleaded as an additional respondent to these
proceedings.
13. Sri Vinay Venugopal, learned Central Government
Senior Panel Counsel, is directed to accept notice on behalf of
the FRRO and obtain instructions regarding the present status of
the complainant and the other illegal immigrants referred to in
the communication, particularly whether appropriate
proceedings have been initiated to deport them beyond the
territorial boundaries of this nation.
14. Tag this petition along with Criminal Petition
No.11265 of 2026 and list the matters on 06.08.2026 under
the caption 'Fresh Matters' .”
4.3. In Criminal Petition No.11265 of 2026, this Court, on
06-08-2026, passed the following order:
“ Heard the learned ASGI, Sri. Aravind Kamath appearing
for respondents.
This Court granted an interim order of stay of further
investigation against the petitioner on 28.07.2026 by the
following order:
"Heard Sri Girish Bharadwaj, learned counsel for
petitioner.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader
waives notice to respondent No.1 and learned State
Public Prosecutor – 1 is directed to make submission in
the matter.
- 14 -
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a
copy of the petition papers upon the learned High Court
Government Pleader, forthwith.
ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2026
4. The petitioner is before this Court, now
arrayed as an accused in Crime No.488 of 2026,
registered at the instance of one Mohammed Saidul
Islam, who, it is not in dispute, is an immigrant from
Bangladesh, allegedly residing within the precincts of
this city without any authority of law.
5. The foundational facts are neither disputed nor
obscure. Respondent No.2 admittedly possesses no
document authorising him to stay within the territory of
this Nation. As per the complaint averments, the
petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully restrained and
abused the complainant and others, who were residing
in labour sheds, on a suspicion that they were of
Bangladesh origin. All these happens between 3.30
p.m. and 4.00 p.m. on 18.07.2026.
6. The averments in the petition would be that
the petitioner upon receipt of information about the
illegal immigrants in the area, calls the police and
informs about this fact. It transpires that the police
along with the petitioner reach the spot and the
complainant apprehending his detention, flees from the
said spot. The said incident according to the
petitioner happens between 1.39 p.m. and 3.30
p.m. on 18.07.2026.
7. Strikingly, the complainant appeared
before the jurisdictional police at 9.45 p.m. on
18.07.2026 and lodged the impugned complaint
alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained
and assaulted him. The chronology of events speak
louder than words. At the time of registering the
impugned crime, the Investigating Officer had not
noticed, much less recorded, any injury upon the
complainant. Yet, a criminal case springs into existence.
8. The moment the complaint came to be
registered, the police machinery swung into action with
unusual alacrity. The sequence of events, at least at this
- 15 -
stage, presents a textbook illustration of how the
coercive powers of criminal law can be pressed into
service in aid of a complaint which bears the
unmistakable imprint of retaliation rather than genuine
grievance. Few instances could better exemplify an
abuse of the process of law.
9. Equally baffling is the manner in which the
crime itself came to be registered. Even a plain reading
of the complaint does not disclose any discernible
infliction of injury. Yet, the criminal law was set into
motion without the most elementary scrutiny. The
Courts cannot remain oblivious to situations where the
criminal justice system is employed, not as an
instrument to redress legitimate wrongs, but as a shield
to protect those whose very presence in the country is
under serious legal cloud, while simultaneously turning
the sword of prosecution against the individual who had
brought such illegality to the notice of the competent
authorities. Such a course, if permitted, would erode
public confidence in the administration of criminal
justice.
10. The complaint itself is dated 18.07.2026 .
Significantly, while the complainant describes his place
of residence as Bengaluru, he simultaneously discloses
himself to be a resident of Bangladesh. This
circumstance, by itself, ought to have prompted the
Station House Officer to undertake a preliminary
verification as to the authenticity of the allegations and
the surrounding circumstances before hastening to
register a crime against the petitioner.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned
State Public Prosecutor – 1 shall secure instructions as
to how such a crime came to be registered in the
complete absence of any medical examination or
contemporaneous material disclosing injury which, at
least prima facie, appears to be bereft of credibility.
12. Therefore, there shall be an interim order
staying further investigation in Crime No.488 of
2026 registered by the Varthur Police Station, now
pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru , until
further orders of this Court.
- 16 -
13. The Foreigners Regional Registration
Office (FRRO) shall be impleaded as an additional
respondent to these proceedings.
14. Sri Vinay Venugopal, learned Central
Government Senior Panel Counsel, is directed to accept
notice on behalf of the FRRO and obtain instructions
regarding the present status of the complainant and the
other illegal immigrants, particularly whether
appropriate proceedings have been initiated to deport
them beyond the territorial boundaries of this nation.
15. Tag this petition along with Criminal
Petition No.11258 of 2026 and list the matters on
06.08.2026 under the caption 'Fresh Matters' ."
and further directed the FRRO to place on record as to what are
the steps taken towards the implementation of the SOP of illegal
immigrants.
Learned ASGI places on record a communication which
clearly indicates that the complainants along with others are
illegally staying in India as that is the finding of the FRRO.
Learned ASGI would further submit that the complainants
are on movement restriction orders along with others.
Therefore, in terms of the SOP, the learned ASGI shall place on
record the development with regard to their exit beyond the
shores of this Nation.
The interim order subsisting would continue till the next
date of hearing, however, with an observation that no incidents
of assault should happen in the interregnum to any other illegal
immigrants by the petitioner.
List the matter on 20.08.2026 .”
4.4. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (‘FRRO’) was
directed to be impleaded in both the cases. During the subsistence
of the interim orders, the petitioner files the third petition, now the
- 17 -
Writ Petition seeking the afore-quoted prayer. The Writ Petition is
preferred on the score that at the behest of these illegal
immigrants, without any rhyme or reason, the petitioner was taken
into custody. Therefore, he seeks compensation for the said act of
the Police in taking the petitioner into custody. This Court in
W.P.No.24641 of 2026 on 06-08-2026 passes the following order:
“ ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Girish Bharadwaj, learned counsel for
petitioner.
Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to
accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned State Public
Prosecutor - 1 is directed to appear in the matter.
Sri Vinay Venugopal, learned Central Government Senior
Panel Counsel is directed to accept for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
This Court on 28.07.2026, in Crl.P.No.11258/2026 passed
the following order:
“Heard Sri Girish Bharadwaj, learned counsel for
petitioner.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader
waives notice to respondent No.1 and learned State
Public Prosecutor – 1 is directed to make submission in
the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a
copy of the petition papers upon the learned High Court
Government Pleader, forthwith.
ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2026
4. The petitioner is before this Court, now
arrayed as an accused in Crime No.343 of 2026,
- 18 -
registered at the instance of one Nasreena, who, it is not
in dispute, is an immigrant from Bangladesh, allegedly
residing within the precincts of this city without any
authority of law.
5. The foundational facts are neither disputed nor
obscure. Respondent No.2 admittedly possesses no
document authorising her to stay within the territory of
this Nation. The Investigating Officer, who was then
engaged in the inquiry concerning illegal immigrants, at
11.30 a.m. on 22.07.2026, addressed a
communication to the Foreigners Regional
Registration Office (FRRO) recording that the
complainant was an illegal immigrant residing in the city
and recommending that she be lodged in a detention
centre pending her deportation beyond the shores of this
country.
6. The genesis of the said communication to the
FRRO lies in the information furnished by the present
petitioner, who had brought to the notice of the
authorities that the complainant, along with others, was
residing in the city as an illegal immigrant. Strikingly,
within a fleeting span of fifteen minutes, at 11.45
a.m., the very same complainant appeared before the
jurisdictional police and lodged the impugned complaint
alleging that the petitioner had assaulted her. The
chronology of events speaks louder than words. At
11.30 a.m., the Investigating Officer had not noticed,
much less recorded, any injury upon the complainant.
Yet, within the next fifteen minutes, a criminal case
springs into existence. The timing of the complaint,
viewed in juxtaposition with the communication to the
FRRO, prima facie portrays it as nothing but a retaliatory
counterblast to the petitioner's act of bringing the
complainant's illegal presence in the country to the
notice of the authorities.
7. Matters assume a more disturbing complexion
thereafter. The moment the complaint came to be
registered, the police machinery swung into action with
unusual alacrity. The petitioner was taken into custody
and deprived of his liberty, only to be released on the
following day. The sequence of events, at least at this
stage, presents a textbook illustration of how the
coercive powers of criminal law can be pressed into
service in aid of a complaint which bears the
- 19 -
unmistakable imprint of retaliation rather than genuine
grievance. Few instances could better exemplify an
abuse of the process of law.
8. Equally baffling is the manner in which the
crime itself came to be registered. Even a plain reading
of the complaint does not disclose any discernible
infliction of injury. Yet, the criminal law was set in
motion without the most elementary scrutiny. Courts
cannot remain oblivious to situations where the criminal
justice system is employed, not as an instrument to
redress legitimate wrongs, but as a shield to protect
those whose very presence in the country is under
serious legal cloud, while simultaneously turning the
sword of prosecution against the individual who had
brought such illegality to the notice of the competent
authorities. Such a course, if permitted, would erode
public confidence in the administration of criminal
justice.
9. The complaint itself is dated 22.07.2026 .
Significantly, while the complainant describes her place
of residence as Bengaluru, she simultaneously discloses
herself to be a resident of Bangladesh. This
circumstance, by itself, ought to have prompted the
Station House Officer to undertake a preliminary
verification as to the authenticity of the allegations and
the surrounding circumstances before hastening to
arrest the petitioner. The liberty of a citizen cannot
become collateral damage in the wake of a complaint
that demanded careful scrutiny rather than
unquestioning acceptance.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor shall secure instructions as to
how such a crime came to be registered in the complete
absence of any medical examination or
contemporaneous material disclosing injury, and as to
how the petitioner was taken into custody on the
strength of a complaint which, at least prima facie,
appears to be bereft of credibility.
11. Therefore, there shall be an interim order
staying further investigation in Crime No.343 of
2026 registered by the Bellanduru Police Station, now
pending on the file of the 41st Additional Chief
- 20 -
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru , until further orders of
this Court.
12. The Foreigners Regional Registration
Office (FRRO) shall be impleaded as an additional
respondent to these proceedings.
13. Sri Vinay Venugopal, learned Central
Government Senior Panel Counsel, is directed to accept
notice on behalf of the FRRO and obtain instructions
regarding the present status of the complainant and the
other illegal immigrants referred to in the
communication, particularly whether appropriate
proceedings have been initiated to deport them beyond
the territorial boundaries of this nation.
14. Tag this petition along with Criminal
Petition No.11265 of 2026 and list the matters on
06.08.2026 under the caption 'Fresh Matters' .”
In the light of the issue being solitary in Crl.P.No.11258/2026
and the subject petition, further investigation, qua the
petitioner, remains stayed, till the next date of hearing.
Tag this petition along with Criminal Petition No.11258 of
2026 and list these matters on 20.08.2026 .”
In the light of the interim orders passed by this Court, the
investigation remained stayed in both the subject crimes.
5. The learned counsel Sri Girish Bharadwaj in a challenge
to criminal petitions so filed would vehemently contend that the
petitioner only took the Police to the place where illegal immigrants
had put up makeshift houses or sheds. The complainants in all
these cases seek to register complaints before different Police
- 21 -
Stations still showing their residence as a place in Bangladesh which
clearly indicates that they are illegally staying in the country and
this illegality had been projected by the petitioner. An incident is
said to have happened between 1.39 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on 18-07-
2026. The complainant in Crime No.343 of 2026 appears to have
appeared before the jurisdictional Police even before commission of
the incident. The learned counsel would thus submit that the
complaint of illegal immigrants being projected has now resulted in
the petitioner himself being dragged into the dragnet of crime. He
would submit that if this is permitted it would become an abuse of
the process of law and permitting retaliatory tactics to get away
with them being sent out of the country. The complainants, in both
these cases, have remained unrepresented throughout.
6. The learned State Public Prosecutor – I Sri B N
Jagadeesha would seek to defend the action of registration of the
crimes, as the allegations in the crimes project certain assault by
the petitioner upon illegal immigrants. Therefore, the crimes had to
be registered. Insofar as investigation is concerned, he would leave
- 22 -
the decision to the hands of the Court, as the complainants who
have registered the complaints are to be seen nowhere.
7. The FRRO who was directed to be impleaded is now
represented by the Sri Arvind Kamath , the Additional Solicitor
General of India. He would submit that, in terms of Standard
Operating Procedure drawn to drive away illegal immigrants, action
would be taken to send these people out of the country. He would
submit that the complainants are on movement restriction orders
along with others and would admit that they are illegally staying in
the country in terms of the preliminary finding of the FRRO. He
would submit that action would be taken in terms of Standard
Operating Procedure.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts, read in conjunction with the
interim orders passed from time to time, capture the entire gamut
of the controversy. Since the genesis of the proceedings lies in the
- 23 -
complaints which culminated in registration of the two crimes, it
becomes necessary to notice their contents. The complaint in Crime
No.488 of 2026 reads as follows:
, : 18.07.2026
“ರವ ೆ ಾಂಕ
,
ಾಾಾಗಳ
,
ವತೂ ರು ೕ ಾೆ
.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
ಇಂದ
, 45 ,
!ಹಮ$% &ೈದು( ಇ&ಾ)ಂ *+ ಇಜು( ಇ&ಾ)ಂ ವಯಸು/ ವಷ
,
1ಾಸ ೇ2 ಆ4 ಮು56ಾಜು ರವರ 7ೇಬ2 9ೆ:
, , ,
ೊಡ< ಾ=ಮ ಸ ಾ 9ಾ7ೆ >ಂ?ಾಗ ೊಡ< ಾ=ಮ
, .
ಸ@ಾ ಪBರ ರ&ೆC ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
: ,
ಸDಂತ EFಾಸ @ಾ9ೆGೕ2 ಾ=ಮ &ೌI 1ೆಸJ+
:
6ಾKJೕಯLೆ ಾಂಾ)Mೇಶ
: ,
Eಷಯ ನಮ$ನುO ಅಡQRಾS ಅ1ಾಚU ಶಬVಗWಂದ ೈದು ೈಗWಂದ ಹ7ೆ)
.
XಾYರುವ ಆ&ಾZಗಳ Eರುದ[ ದೂರು
,
ಾನು ಮೂಲತಃ ಾಂಗ)Mೇಶದ 51ಾ^_ಾ`ದುV ೆಲವB ವಷ ಗಳ >ಂMೆ ೆಂಗಳ ೆ
. 15
ಬಂದು EEಧ ಕbೆಗಳ ) ೆ7ೆ^ ಕೂ ೆಲಸ XಾಡುLಾC cೕವನ ನbೆಸು<CMೆVೕ ೆ ಈ ೆe ನಗಳ
>ಂMೆ ಇMೇ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರದ ಸ@ಾ ಪBರ ಮುಖUರ&ೆCಯ ೊಡ< ಾ=ಮದ ಸ ಾ 9ಾ7ೆಯ
>ಂ?ಾಗ ಇರುವಂತಹ ಮು56ಾಜು ಎಂಬುವವರ 7ೇಬ2 9ೆ:ನ ) 9ೆ: ಅನುO ಾYೆೆ
,
ಪbೆದು ೊಂಡು 1ಾಸ1ಾ`ದುV ನನOಂLೆhೕ ಅMೇ @ಾಗದ )ರುವ ಇತರ 7ೇಬ2 9ೆ:ಗಳ )
, , ,
?ಾಂಗ)MೇಶದವರುಗFಾದ ಜ ೕ( 9ೇi !ಹಮ$% 5ತು( 9ೇj 6ೇಣು ೇಗಂ 9ಾ>ದ
, .
ೇಗಂ 7ೈಜು ಎಂಬುವವರುಗಳ ಸಹ 1ಾಸ1ಾ`ರುLಾC6ೆ
:-17-07-2026, 15:30
>ೕ`ರು1ಾ ೆe ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮlಾUಹO ಗಂmೆಯ ) 9ೆ:ಗಳ ಬW
,
ಇರ ೇಾದ6ೆ ೆಲವB ಆ&ಾZಗಳ ಏ ಾ ಏS 9ೆ:ಗಳ ಬW ಬಂದು ನನOನುO ಮತುC ಜ ೕ( 9ೇi
- 24 -
, , , ,
!ಹಮ$% 5ತು( 9ೇj 6ೇಣು ೇಗಂ 9ಾ>ದ ೇಗಂ 7ೈಜು ರವರುಗಳನುO ಅಡQಗop 5 )^
ನಮ$ನುO ಒLಾCಯಪrವ ಕ1ಾ` &ಾ7ಾ` ಕೂ ^ ನಮ$ನುO ಉMೆVೕtಸುLಾC 5ೕವB ಾಂಾ)Mೇಶದ
,
ಪ=@ೆಗಳ ಅ7ಾD _ಾ ೆ ಇ )ೆ ಬಂದು ಅಕ=ಮ1ಾ` ನಮ$ Mೇಶದ ) 1ಾಸ1ಾ` Vೕ6ಾ ಅಂತ
ೇWದರು ಆಗ ಾನು ೆಲವB ವಷ ಗWಂದ ?ಾರತದ )hೕ 1ಾಸ1ಾ`ದುV ಕೂ ೆಲಸ XಾಡುLಾC
.
cೕವನ ನbೆಸು<CMೆVೕ ೆಂದು RೇWMೆವB ಮುಂದುವ6ೆದು ಸದ ಆ&ಾZಗಳ ನನ ೆ ಅ1ಾಚU
, .
ಶಬVಗWಂದ ೈದು 5ೕವB ಾಂಾ)Mೇಶಂದ ಬಂ Vೕ6ಾ ಾವB RೇW ೊಟp Rಾ ೆ 5ೕವB ಅದನುO
. ,
Rೇಳ ೇಕು ಇಲ)Mೆ Rೋದ6ೆ 5ಮ ೆ ಒಂದು ಗ< ಾvಸುLೆCೕ ೆ ಅಂತ RೇW ೈಗWಂದ ನನ ೆ
. "
Rೊbೆ ರುLಾC6ೆ ನಂತರ 5ೕವB ೕಸೆ ದುಡುQ ೊಡು<Cೕ6ಾ ಅ7ಾD ಅಂತ ೇWದುV ಾವB ಇಲ)
ಎಂದು RೇWದರೂ ಸಹ ನZ$ಂದ ಒLಾCಯ ಪrವ ಕ1ಾ` ಅವರು RೇW ೊಟpಂLೆ ನನO ಕbೆwಂದ
.
RೇW^ ಅದನುO EYxೕ XಾY ೊಂYರುLಾC6ೆ ಸದ ಆ&ಾZಗಳ )ನ ಒಬy ವUSCಯ Rೆಸರು
, .
ಾೇಂದ=ಪz ಎಂಬುMಾ` <Wದುಬಂ ದುV ಇತರರ Rೆಸರುಗಳ ನನ ೆ <Wದುಬಂ ರುವBಲ)
, ,
{ೕಲ|ಂಡಂLೆ ನನ ೆ ಅ1ಾಚU ಶಬVಗWಂದ ೈದು ನಮ$ನುO ಅಡQಗop ನನ ೆ ೈಗWಂದ
1)
ಹ7ೆ) XಾYದ ಆ&ಾZಗFಾದ ಾೇಂದ=ಪ/ ಮತುC ಇತರರ Eರುದ[ ಾನೂನು ಕ=ಮ
ೈೊಳ} ೇೆಂದು ೋರುLೆCೕ ೆ ಅಂತ RೇW ೆ 5ೕYರುLೆCೕ ೆ
ಸ>/-
.”
ಇಂ< ತಮ$ E9ಾD^
The complaint in Crime No.343 of 2026 reads as follows:
, : 22/07/2026
“ರವ ೆ ಾಂಕ
,
ೕ ಸ€ ಇ+/•ೆಕp2
,
ೆಳ}ಂದೂರು ೕ ಾೆ
.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
,
ಇಂದ
,
t=ೕಮ< ನ^ೕ ಾ ೋಂ !ಹಮ$% *7ಾ(
23 , ,
ವಯಸು/ ವಷ Yಎ XಾUj/ ಅ•ಾ‚ {ಂ‚ ಹ<Cರ
, ,
Rಾbೋ ^MಾVಪBರ ಾ=ಮ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
- 25 -
. .8904586839, :- ,
! ನಂ ಸDಂತ EFಾಸ 6ಾƒಪB2 ಾ=ಮ
, ,
ಪt„ಮ 6ಾƒಪB2 ೕp ಶರ… ೊಳ} ರಂMಾ ೕ ಾೆ
,
ಬ†ೇ6ಾ c7ೆ) ಾಂಾ)Mೇಶ 6ಾಷJ
,
XಾನU6ೇ
॥
:
Eಷಯ bಾ ಾೇಂದ= ರವರ Eರುದ[ ಾನೂನು jರಮ ಜರು`ಸಲು ೋ
*
4
ಾನು {ೕಲ|ಂಡ EFಾಸದ ) ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸ{ೕತ1ಾ`ದುV ೊಂಡು cೕವನ ಾ|` ಸುXಾರು
.
ವಷ ಗWಂದ Yಎ XಾUj/ ಅ•ಾ‚ {ಂ‚ನ) ಕುS|ಂˆ ೆಲಸ XಾY ೊಂYರುLೆCೕ ೆ ನನO ಗಂಡ
!ಹಮ$% *7ಾ( ರವರು ೊಡ< ೇ‚ನ)ರುವ •ೆ‰/ ಕಂಪ5ಯ ) bೆŠEಂˆ ೆಲಸ
. , 1 , 2
XಾY ೊಂYರುLೆCೕ ೆ ನಮ ೆ ಇಬyರು ಮಕ|WದುV ೇ ೕಪI ೇ ಅ6ಾಪI ರವ ದುV ಸDಂತ
. 06-00 11-
ಊ ನ) 1ಾಸXಾY ೊಂYರುLಾC6ೆ ಾನು ಎಂ ನಂLೆ ಪ=< ನ ೆWೆe ಗಂmೆwಂದ
00 04-00 08-00
ಗಂmೆಯ1ೆ6ೆ ೆ Rಾಗೂ ಸಂ@ೆ ಗಂmೆwಂದ ಗಂmೆಯವ6ೆ ೆ ಕುS|ಂˆ ೆಲಸ
.
XಾY ೊಂಡು 1ಾ•ಾಸು/ ಮ ೆೆ ಬಂದು 1ಾಸXಾY ೊಂYರುLೆCೕ ೆ
: 22/07/2026 06-00
>`ರು1ಾ ೆe ಈ ನ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ೆWೆe ಗಂmೆ ೆ ಕುS|ಂˆ
10-45
ೆಲಸೆ| Rೋ` ೆWೆe ಸುXಾರು ಗಂmೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ) ನನO ಗಂಡ !ಹಮ$% *7ಾ(
.
ರವ ೆ ಕ6ೆ XಾY ಾEಬyರು @ೊLೆ ೆ ಮ ೆೆ Rೋ ೋಣ ಾ ಎಂದು <W^Mೆನು ತದನಂತರ
11-00
ಾನು ೆಲಸ ಮು`^ ೊಂಡು ಸುXಾರು ಗಂmೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ) ಾನು ಮತುC ನನO ಗಂಡ
!ಹಮ$% *7ಾ( ರವರು ಸ@ಾ ಪBರ ಮುಖU ರ&ೆCwಂದ Rಾbೋ^MಾVಪBರ ರ&ೆCಯ ಕbೆ ೆ
.
ನbೆದು ೊಂಡು Rೋಗು<CMೆVೕವB ಆ ಸಮಯದ ) ಏ ಾಎS ಒಬy ಅಪ Œತ ವUSC ಬಂದು ನನOನುO ಮತುC
॥
ನನO ಗಂಡ !ಹಮ$% *7ಾ( ರವರನುO ಅಡQಗop ನಮ$ನುO >Yದು ೊಂಡು ತನO Rೆಸರು bಾ
, , ,
ಾೇಂದ= &ಾw S)5j ೆಟpMಾಸಪBರ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ಎಂದು <W^ 5ೕವB ಾಂಾ)
? ?
Mೇಶದವರು ಎಂದು ಇ ) _ಾ ೆ 1ಾಸXಾY ೊಂYರು<Cೕ ಏನು ೆಲಸ Xಾಡು<Cೕ6ಾ ಎಂದು
.
5ೕವB ಾಂಾ) Mೇಶದವರು ಎಂದು RೇW @ೋ6ಾ` ೆದ^ರುLಾC ೆ ಾನು ಮ>Fೆಯು ಎಂದು
<W ದVರೂ ಸಹ ಅವXಾನ Xಾಡುವ ಉMೆVೕಶ ಂದ &ಾವ ಜ5ಕ ಸ•ಳದ ) ಏಕವಚನದ )
.
Xಾತ ಾY ನನOನುO >Yದು ಎFೆMಾY ೈಗWಂದ Rೊbೆ ರುLಾC ೆ ನನO ಗಂಡ5ಗೂ ಸಹ ೈಗWಂದ
4 5 .
ಸುXಾರು ಂದ ಾ ತ7ೆಯ {ೕ7ೆ Rಾಗೂ ೆ5Oನ {ೕ7ೆ Rೊbೆದು ಹ7ೆ) XಾYರುLಾC ೆ ನನO
ಗಂಡ !ಹಮ$% *7ಾ( ರವರನುO ೆಲೆ| ೆಳೆbೆ ೆಡ` ಾ5ಂದ ಒ VರುLಾC ೆ ಆಗ ಾನು
“ , ,
ೇWದVೆ| ನನ ೆ ೆಟpMಾ` >ಂ ?ಾŽೆಯ ) ತು• ಚು• ರRೋ ನ>ೕ Xಾರುಂ ಾ Xಾದ2
, " ,
‘ೋ% ತು• S^ ೋ ೋ7ಾ Lೋ Xಾ2 ದುಂ ಾ ಎಂದು ೆಟpMಾ` ೈದು •ಾ=ಣ ೆದೆ
.
RಾSರುLಾC ೆ
- 26 -
,
ಆದV ಂದ ನನO Rಾಗೂ ನನO ಗಂಡ !ಹಮ$% *7ಾ( ರವರನುO ರ&ೆCಯ ) ಅಡQಗop
ಾನು ಮ>Fೆhಂದು <W ದVರೂ ಸಹ ನನ ೆ ಅವXಾನ Xಾಡುವ ಉMೆVೕಶ ಂದ &ಾವ ಜ5ಕ
, ,
ಸ•ಳದ ) ಎFೆMಾY ೈಗWಂದ ನನ ೆ ಮತುC ನನO ಗಂಡ5 ೆ ಹ7ೆ) XಾY ಅ1ಾಚU ಶಬVಗWಂದ ೈದು
॥
•ಾ=ಣ ೆದೆ RಾSರುವ bಾ ಾೇಂದ= ರವರ EರುದV ಾನೂನು ಕ=ಮ ಜರು`ಸ ೇೆಂದು ತಮ$ )
.
ೇWೊಳ}LೆCೕ ೆ
ಾನು >ಂ ?ಾŽೆಯ ) RೇWದVನುO ಕನOಡ ?ಾŽೆಯ )
,
mೈ• XಾYದುV ಕನOಡ ?ಾŽೆಯ ) mೈ• XಾYದVನುO
>ಂ ?ಾŽೆ ೆ ತಜು { XಾY Rೇಳ7ಾ` ಸ wMೆ
>ಂ ?ಾŽೆಯ ) RೇWದVನುO ಕನOಡ ?ಾŽೆಯ )
ತಜು { XಾY mೈ• XಾYದವರ ಸ>
pc16039”
ಸ>/-
A striking feature common to both complaints cannot escape notice.
The complainants themselves furnish an address in Bangladesh
while simultaneously claiming residence in the vicinity of an
apartment in Bengaluru. The material placed before the Court
further indicates that they did not possess documents authorising
their stay in India and were thereafter dealt with by the authorities
as persons staying in the country without lawful authority. It is
against this backdrop that the registration of the crimes against the
petitioner assumes significance.
10. In Criminal Petition No.11258 of 2026, the complainant
admittedly possessed no document authorising her continued stay
- 27 -
within the territory of India. The chronology of events is even more
telling. Upon registration of the crime concerning her unauthorised
stay, the Investigating Officer undertook an enquiry and, at
11.30 a.m. on 22-07-2026 , addressed a communication
recommending that the complainant be lodged in a detention
centre. Barely fifteen minutes thereafter, at 11.45 a.m. , the
very same complainant appears before the Bellandur Police Station
and lodges a complaint alleging that she had been assaulted and
threatened in a loud voice.
11. The proximity of these events is too conspicuous to be
brushed aside as a mere coincidence. At 11.30 a.m., when the
Investigating Officer was dealing with the complainant in connection
with her unauthorised stay, there appears to have been no
contemporaneous indication of the assault which, within fifteen
minutes, became the foundation of a criminal complaint. This
sequence of events casts a serious shadow over the genesis and
bona fides of the prosecution.
12. What disturbs the conscience of this Court is not merely
the registration of an FIR, but the extraordinary sequence in which
- 28 -
the criminal process appears to have been invoked. Criminal law is
undoubtedly available to every person within the territory of India
for redress against an offence; immigration status, by itself, cannot
denude a person of the protection of law. Equally, however, the
criminal justice system cannot be permitted to become an
instrument of retaliation against a person who brings an allegedly
unlawful stay to the notice of the authorities. On the facts obtaining
in the case at hand, the chronology bears a pronounced imprint of
retaliation and warrants scrutiny through the prism of abuse of
process.
13. The case of the complainant in Criminal Petition No.11265
of 2026, which forms the fulcrum of Crime No.488 of 2026, travels
on a similar trajectory. The complainant, one Mohammed Saidul
Islam , alleges that the petitioner wrongfully restrained and
assaulted him on the suspicion that persons residing in the labour
shed were nationals of Bangladesh. The complaint states that the
incident occurred between 3.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. on 18-07-
2026 , whereas the petitioner asserts that the relevant events
occurred between 1.39 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on that day. The
- 29 -
complainant thereafter approached the jurisdictional Police at about
9.45 p.m. , narrated the alleged assault and the crime came to be
registered. The status of the complainant, however, is illuminated
by the communication dated 20-07-2026 addressed to the FRRO.
The communication reads as follows:
The said communication refers to the complainant, as person
detained on account of his unauthorised entry and stay in India.
- 30 -
This was followed by a movement restriction order passed by the
FRRO, one of which reads as follows:
14. The documents thus placed before the Court lend
considerable significance to the petitioner's contention that the
complaints followed his act of bringing the alleged unauthorised
stay of the complainants to the notice of the authorities. The
criminal process, solemn as it is, cannot be converted into a
retaliatory weapon to silence the informant, merely because the
information furnished by him has set the machinery of immigration
- 31 -
enforcement in motion. The Court is conscious that the police
cannot decline registration merely because the informant happens
to be a foreign national or is alleged to be unlawfully staying in
India. Where information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence, the law governing registration of an FIR must take its
course. But registration is not the terminus of judicial scrutiny.
When contemporaneous official records, the chronology of events
and the attendant circumstances together demonstrate that the
prosecution is manifestly actuated by vengeance, the constitutional
Court cannot remain a mute spectator and permit the criminal
process itself to become the punishment.
15. The circumstances obtaining in both crimes, viewed
cumulatively, reveal a pattern too stark to be ignored. The persons
against whom proceedings relating to unauthorised stay had
commenced almost contemporaneously set the criminal law in
motion against the very petitioner who had complained of their
presence. The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be
turned on its head - where the person who reports an alleged
- 32 -
illegality finds himself pursued by the criminal process at the
instance of those against whom his information was directed.
16. It is precisely such misuse of criminal process that falls
within the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of
1
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL , wherein it is held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 33 -
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 102 of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court
inter alia
recognises, , cases where the allegations are inherently
- 34 -
improbable and cases where criminal proceedings are manifestly
mala fides
attended with or maliciously instituted with the ulterior
object of wreaking vengeance as illustrative categories warranting
exercise of the extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
When the facts of the case at hand are tested on the anvil of the
aforesaid principles, the inference becomes irresistible. The
chronology is not merely suspicious; it strikes at the very
substratum of the prosecution. The attendant circumstances
and contemporaneous official material demonstrate that
continuation of these proceedings would permit criminal law
to be employed as an instrument of reprisal. A prosecution
mala fides
bearing such unmistakable indicia of cannot be
allowed to acquire legitimacy merely because it has assumed
the form of an FIR.
17. The inherent jurisdiction exists precisely to interdict such
abuse before the machinery of criminal law becomes an engine of
harassment. The Court would fail in its duty if, despite the
circumstances staring at it from the record, it were to
compel the petitioner to undergo the rigours of an
- 35 -
investigation and prosecution which are demonstrably
tainted at their inception. The two crimes, therefore, deserve to
be obliterated and the criminal petitions consequently deserve to
succeed.
18. This takes the Court to the writ petition, in which the
petitioner seeks directions concerning the manner in which persons
allegedly staying in India without lawful authority are to be dealt
with. A Standard Operating Procedure is stated to govern the
field. The relevant clauses and their purport are extracted
hereunder:
“ A. Demography of Illegal Migration: National Policy and
Judicial Backdrop
1. It is submitted that India shares long, porous land and
maritime borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar, and that
cultural, ethnic and linguistic similarities across these
borders mean unauthorised entry and settlement
frequently go undetected for years, altering local
demography, straining civic resources and raising serious
security concerns. It is submitted that these very
concerns stand expressly recorded by the Ministry of
Home Affairs in its letter dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure M).
2. It is submitted that the gravity that unchecked illegal
migration carries for constitutional governance is
illustrated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), wherein
the large-scale, unchecked Influx of Bangladeshi nationals
was held to amount to "external aggression" and internal
- 36 -
disturbance within the meaning of Article 355 of the
Constitution, and the Union was held bound by its
affirmative duty to protect the States, with a direction for
rigorous enforcement of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It is
further submitted that in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v.
Union of India (2014), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directed a time-bound, monitored Identification of
undocumented immigrants through updation of the
National Register of Citizens. It is submitted that these
decisions underscore that prompt identification and
deportation of illegal migrants, far from being a matter of
administrative discretion, has been treated by the
Constitutional Courts as a facet of the State's duty under
Article 355.
3. It is humbly submitted the Union Government in May
2026 constituted a High-Level Committee to study
demographic changes arising from illegal immigration,
headed by a former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It is submitted that its terms of reference expressly
include recommending a streamlined, institutional and
permanent mechanism for the legally sound, fair and
time-bound identification, detention and deportation of
undocumented immigrants, and strengthening
coordination between the Union and the States in
managing demographic imbalance caused by such illegal
migration.
4. It is most respectfully submitted that it is against this
backdrop of illegal migration being treated by the Union
Government and the Constitutional Courts as a matter
directly implicating national security, Article 355 and the
integrity of local demography that the conduct of the
police in arresting the citizen-informant, while permitting
the detected illegal immigrant to remain at large and
prosecute a retaliatory complaint, calls for correction by
this Hon'ble Court.
B. The Statutory Framework Governing Illegal Migrants
5. It is submitted that 'illegal migrant' is a defined statutory
expression, and that Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship
Act, 1955 defines it as a foreigner who has entered India
- 37 -
either without a valid passport, or who, having entered
with valid documents, overstays beyond the permitted
period. It is submitted that enforcement powers vest
concurrently:
(i) the police may arrest such a foreign national under
Section 4 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act,
1920
(ii) overstay is punishable under Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946; and
(iii) entry/stay without valid documents is punishable
under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
It is submitted that under the Foreigners Act, the burden of
proving citizenship rests on the individual and not on the State.
It is further submitted that these functions of the Central
Government under Sections 3(2)(c) and 3(2)(e) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 5 of the Passport (Entry into
India) Act, 1920, and the Foreigners Order, 1948 stand
delegated to the State Governments under Article 258(1) of the
Constitution (Notification S.O. 590 dated 19.04.1958) and, for
Union Territories, executed under Article 239 (Notification S.O.
591 dated 19.04.1958); that District SPs and DCPs designated
as FRROS/FROS are the Registering Authorities under the
Foreigners Order, 1948 and the Registration of Foreigners Rules,
1992 (Annexure L, paras 3-6) and that the Foreigners Act, 1946
itself now stands replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners
Act, 2025, under which Sections 7(2), 13 and 29 continue to
vest the Central Government and State Governments with the
power and duty to detect, restrict and deport foreign nationals
staying illegally.
6. It is submitted that by its letter dated 08.08.2017, the
MHA directed all States to sensitize law-enforcement and
intelligence agencies and to "initiate the deportation
processes expeditiously and without delay" upon
identification of illegal migrants (Annexure M, para 4).
C. The MHA Standard Operating Procedure Dated
02.05.2025 Detection, Identification, Detention and
Deportation
- 38 -
7. It is submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Foreigners Division, by its letter No. 25022/28/2020-
F.I(Part-III) dated 02.05.2025 revised and consolidated
the procedure for deportation of illegally staying
Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingyas (Annexure L), and
that its salient, mandatory features are as under:
a. Interception at the border- Illegal Immigrants
intercepted while crossing the border, land or
maritime, are to be sent back immediately by the
designated Border Guarding Force or Coast Guard,
after capturing biometrics (fingerprints and facial
photographs) and demographic details on the
Foreigners Identification Portal (FIP) at
https://identification.mha.gov.in (para 7.1).
b. Inadvertent border-crossers -If apprehended within
the country near the border and found innocent
after interrogation, they are handed over to the
border-guarding force of the country of origin,
again only after biometric capture; if not found
innocent, they are handed over to the State Police
for further action (para 8).
c. Detection within the country- Every State/UT is
required to set up a Special Task Force in each
District, under the District Police, specifically to
detect, Identify and deport/send back illegal
Bangladeshi/Myanmar immigrants settled in that
State/UT (para 9(1) )
d. Holding Centres - Every State is required to set up
adequate Holding Centres in each District, under
the State Police, to detain illegal immigrants
pending deportation (para 9(ii)).
e. Verification within 30 days - Where a detected
person claims Indian citizenship or residence
elsewhere in India, the claim is to be verified by the
Home Secretary or District Collector concerned
within a period of 30 days; during this period the
suspected person is to be kept in the Holding
- 39 -
Centre to ensure physical availability, and if no
report is received within 30 days, the FRRO may
proceed to deport the suspected person (para
9(Iv)).
f. Confirmed identification-On a person being
identified as an illegal immigrant, the State must
immediately capture biometrics and demographic
details on the FIP (para 9(v)) , and thereafter
escort the person, under proper order issued under
Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to the
designated Border Guarding Force/Coast Guard for
exit from India; such persons are also to be
blacklisted (paras 9(vi) & (vii)).
g. Reporting and accountability- A monthly report of
persons handed over for deportation is mandatorily
to be sent to the MHA through the FRRO by the
15th of the following month (para 9(xii)); the
Bureau of Immigration is to publish and share a list
of persons deported/sent back with the UIDAI, the
Election Commission and other agencies granting
identity documents/benefits, to enable deactivation
of such benefits (para 9(xiii)).”
The Standard Operating Procedure contemplates a comprehensive
institutional mechanism at the district level for identification,
verification and lawful action concerning persons residing within the
territory of India without authority of law. The constitution of
District Level Committees is an integral component of that
mechanism. The procedure cannot be permitted to remain a mere
executive proclamation, bereft of implementation. The jurisdictional
police and the competent authorities must act in concert, within the
- 40 -
boundaries of law, to ensure that cases of unauthorised immigration
are dealt with promptly and effectively. The material placed before
this Court, however, does not satisfactorily demonstrate whether
such Committees have been constituted throughout the State or
whether they are functional. The State Government must,
therefore, place on record, the district-wise particulars of their
constitution, composition and functioning. An executive protocol
without an operational institutional mechanism is a promise
without performance; a law without implementation is little
more than an illusion of governance.
19. If the Standard Operating Procedure mandates
constitution of District Level Committees, its commands cannot
remain ornamental words on paper. The machinery contemplated
thereunder must exist and function in every district where the
procedure so requires. A protocol devised to meet an identified
administrative and security concern loses its very purpose, if the
institutional apparatus contemplated by it, is either not constituted
or remains dormant.
- 41 -
20. The State must ensure that allegations of unauthorised
immigration are dealt with promptly, uniformly and strictly in
accordance with law . Neither administrative apathy nor
indiscriminate action can be countenanced. Persons found to be
staying in India without lawful authority must be dealt with under
the applicable statutory and executive framework; equally, no
person can be deprived of the protection of law merely on account
of nationality or immigration status.
21. Before parting, it may not be inapt to observe that,
illegal immigration is a bane which is not merely an
infraction of the laws regulating entry into and residence
within the territory of the nation. It presents a challenge to
the sovereignty of the State, the integrity of its borders and
the efficacy of its internal security apparatus. Unregulated
and undocumented movement of persons across national
frontiers, when left unchecked, has the potential to create
serious vulnerabilities in the machinery of governance. It
may facilitate identity fraud, exploitation by trafficking
syndicates, organised criminal networks and other unlawful
- 42 -
activities, besides placing unforeseen pressures upon public
infrastructure, welfare administration and the legitimate
distribution of public resources. A nation that loses sight of
who enters its territory, who resides within it and under
what authority such residence continues, risks weakening
the very regulatory framework through which its
sovereignty is exercised. The State cannot afford to be
indifferent to unlawful immigration, for indifference today
may become an institutional vulnerability tomorrow. Illegal
immigration must be addressed with firmness. It is
precisely to secure this balance that the Standard Operating
Procedure must be implemented in letter and spirit, lest an
issue requiring orderly legal administration become a
recurring source of public discord.
22. The State Government shall, therefore, place the
aforesaid particulars on record within the time stipulated by this
Court. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the Standard
Operating Procedure would necessarily invite further directions, for,
an executive protocol framed to address a matter of such
- 43 -
consequence cannot be permitted to remain only a paper
prescription.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition Nos. 11258 of 2026 and 11265
of 2026 are allowed.
(ii) Crimes registered in Crime No. 343 of 2026 before
Bellanduru Police Station and Crime No.488 of 2026
before Varthur Police Station stand obliterated.
(iii) Writ Petition No.24641 of 2026 stands disposed of
with a direction to the State Government to ensure the
constitution and operationalisation of District Level
Committees for dealing with cases of illegal immigration,
strictly in consonance with the mandate of the Standard
Operating Procedure.
(iv) The State Government shall ensure that such
Committees are constituted and made functional in all
- 44 -
districts where their constitution is mandated, within
an outer limit of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The State Government shall thereafter place before the
Registry of this Court, in the subject petition, a
comprehensive district-wise compliance report
evidencing the constitution, composition and operational
status of the Committees.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp