Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Tino Abraham vs Regional Passport Office Trivandrum
2024 Latest Caselaw 10937 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10937 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Tino Abraham vs Regional Passport Office Trivandrum on 12 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 15032 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         TINO ABRAHAM
         AGED 38 YEARS
         S/O. ABRAHAM MATHEW KANNAKUZHIYIL
         NADUKKETHIL, OTHERA P.O. TIRUVALLA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689551

         BY ADVS.
         K.DHRUV KUMAR
         M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
         SHAKTHI PRAKASH
         HARIKRISHNAN M.S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE TRIVANDRUM
         SNSM BUILDING, KARALKADA JUNCTION,
         PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024
    2    REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
         REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, SNSM BUILDING,
         KARALKADA JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O.,
         TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024

         BY ADV
         SRI.T.C. KRISHNA, CGC

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15032 of 2024
                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the

respondents to consider Ext.P3 application and reissue a

Passport with normal validity to the petitioner, pending

disposal of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is an Indian citizen and holder of

Passport No.U4842489. He was working in the United

Kingdom as a registered Nurse. While he remained abroad,

certain issues regarding the partition of assets arose in his

wife's family and the petitioner was arraigned as an accused

in two Crimes of Ranni Police Station numbered as 1004/2023

and 1064/2023 respectively.

3. This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in both the Crimes. Both the FIRs are in crime stage

and Final Reports have not been filed yet. The allegations

levelled are baseless and the present Crimes have been filed

with the sole intention to coerce the petitioners into

succumbing to the illegal demands of the defacto complainant

with regard to the family property. The petitioner wishes to go

back to the United Kingdom. The petitioner has obtained

permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court in

compliance with the bail condition in Crime No.1064/2023.

4. The respondents have not considered Ext.P6

representation submitted by the petitioner. The respondents

are insisting on furnishing permission from the Magistrate's

Court in the other Crime as well. It has been held by this Court

in Muhammed v. Union of India and others [2018 (4) KHC

945] that a criminal proceeding is pending only when

cognizance is taken and in the absence of a Final Report filed

in court, a criminal case cannot be treated as pending. It was

also held that mere registration of a Crime does not invoke

either Section 6 or Section 10 of the Act and the police

verification report must mention the stage of the Crime,

contends the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Panel Counsel Sri.T.C. Krishna

representing the respondents.

6. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate

that there are two Crimes registered against the petitioner.

The counsel submits that Crime No.1004/2023 of Ranni

Police Station has been referred. As regards Crime

No.1064/2023 of Ranni Police Station, by Ext.P5 order, the

Magistrate has granted permission to the petitioner to go

abroad for a period of three years. It is, however, to be noted

that the said Crime No.1064/2023 is also in the crime stage

and no Final Report has been published.

7. In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that

the petitioner's Ext.P3 application for reissuance of Passport

for the normal duration can be considered by the Passport

Officer. This is so because Final Reports have not been filed

in both the Crimes.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

respondents to consider Ext.P3 application for reissuance of

the Passport of the petitioner and reissue the same for normal

duration, if the petitioner satisfies all other parameters. This

shall be done within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15032/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12/12/2023 IN B.A.

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10/01/2024 IN

Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF PASSPORT APPLICATION FORM DATED NIL Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF 'CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT' IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/01/2024 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE, RANNI DATED 04/04/2024 IN CMP NO.1807/2024 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/04/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 08/04/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter