Karnataka High Court
B S Thriveni vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
WP No. 28059 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 28059 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
B. S. THRIVENI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.C. SHIVANNA,
R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, STADIUM ROAD,
PRASHANTHNAGAR, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
32, GF-2 5TH B CROSS, GIRINAGAR,
BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K 8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
Location: High KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.
Court of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1/UNION
OF INDIA;
SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R2/STATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
WP No. 28059 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2023 IN SPL. C.C. NO.25/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE OF LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRYING OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 13 (1) (d) AND 13 (2) OF THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 BANGALORE CITY (CCH-78), VIDE
ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition file by the petitioner/accused No.5 under
Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with 482 of
Cr.P.C., for quashing the order passed by the LXXVII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and the special judge in
Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 dated 24.07.2023, for the offences
punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as
"PC Act") and issuing direction to the respondent No.1, for
renewing the passport for a period of 10 years.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and
learned HCGP for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is said
to be facing the trial in Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 for the
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
aforementioned offences. The petitioner challenged the said
order by filing Crl.R.P.No.818/2018, which was stayed by this
court. Prior to that, petitioner approached the trial court
seeking permission of the court, for travelling abroad and also
renewal of the passport for five years, which came to be
allowed on 12.09.2018. Subsequently, after five years, the
passport has been expired. Hence, the petitioner approached
once again before the Trial Court for seeking permission to
renew the passport, which came to be dismissed. Hence,
petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the
petitioner is doctor, but she wants to go to abroad for research
and further training, but because of expiry of the passport for
five years, she requires to file for fresh passport and Visa for
travelling abroad. Also submits, once she has travelled to
abroad and came back, but she has not violated any order of
the court.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objects the petition,
contending that the petitioner not moved any such application.
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
The Trial Court rightly rejected application, as the proceeding
was stayed by the High Court, they cannot pass any order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, appearing
for the Passport Authority, has objected the petition contending
that petitioner not approached the Passport Authority for
renewal of the passport. When the criminal case is pending,
the court required to pass the order for permitting the renewal
of the passport and the passport cannot be renewed
automatically. In support of his contention, he has relied upon
the judgment of the coordinate bench in WP.No.24269/2023
in cases of Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa Vs Union of India
and Ors.
7. Having heard the arguments, perused the records. It
is not in dispute, the petitioner was facing the trial before the
Special Court and the said proceeding has been stayed by this
court in Crl.R.P.No.818/2018 dated 07.01.2019 and the same is
still pending and not yet disposed of. The proceedings against
the petitioner has been stayed, as no criminal case is pending
against the petitioner. However, as per the Passport Circular,
the passport authority cannot renew the passport, without the
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
prior permission of the court. Though the trial court had earlier
granted permission in September 2018, subsequently it was
rejected on the ground, the matter has been stayed by the
High Court. There is no flaw in the order of the trial court as
the matter has been completely stayed by the High Court.
Therefore, the question of conducting any proceedings by the
trial court, does not arises. However, though the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits he has moved application or
tried to file the application, but the passport authority have
informed, because of the criminal case, they cannot renew the
passport, until the order of the High Court. The petitioner
obtained the order of the trial court and renewed the passport
for five years. There is no violation of condition by the
petitioner or she has absconded from the case. On the other
hand, she has returned back and is staying at Bangalore and
continuing with her profession as a Doctor. The criminal case is
ofcourse pending. Such being the case, it is necessary for this
court to issue direction for permission to be granted for
renewing the passport by the respondent No.1/passport
authority.
NC: 2024:KHC:4693
8. As per the circular from the Central Government,
notification dated 25.08.1993, if the court specifies any order,
they will issue the fresh passport. Though the petitioner sought
10 years renewal of the passport, in the normal course, the
passport authority will issue passport only for 5 years. Earlier
also the Trial Court had issued permission for only 5 years.
Such being the case, question of granting 10 years for renewal
of passport does not arises. However, it is permitted to renew
for 5 years. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
This petition is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the order passed by the LXXVII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and the special judge in
Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 dated 24.07.2023 is hereby quashed.
The respondent No.1 is directed to renew the passport for
5 years and also permit the petitioner to travel abroad.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
