The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Mangaluru-based travel agent accused of facilitating passport renewals by allegedly using fabricated residential details. The Court held that the allegations go beyond routine clerical work and require a full-fledged trial to determine the travel agent's role.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sri U.M. Haidar, challenged the criminal proceedings pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru. He argued that he was merely a bona fide travel agent who assisted clients with passport-related formalities and had no role in any alleged wrongdoing.
According to the prosecution, the investigation revealed that the petitioner had allegedly used the address of his travel agency in multiple passport renewal applications instead of the applicants' actual residential addresses. Among those applicants was an individual alleged to have been wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad. Based on these findings, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Passports Act.
Court's Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the petitioner's name did not appear when the FIR was initially registered, but his alleged role emerged during the investigation.
The Court noted that the accusations were not limited to providing routine assistance. Instead, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner facilitated passport renewals by submitting applications containing incorrect residential information.
"The allegation is not one of mere clerical facilitation or routine procedural assistance," the Court observed,
adding that if the allegations are ultimately proved, they could have wider implications affecting national security.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on his physical disability and claim of acting only as a travel agent, the Court said these factors could not override the seriousness of the allegations.
The bench further remarked,
"Whether the petitioner acted with knowledge, intent, or culpable negligence is a matter that can only be tested in the trial."
The Court also expressed concern over the role of the police constable who had cleared verification for multiple applications processed through the travel agency and noted that sanction to prosecute the officer was under consideration.
Decision
Holding that sufficient material existed to proceed with the prosecution, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the criminal case. It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would not influence the trial on merits.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 12734 of 2023
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: 18 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
