Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash Passport Fraud Case Against Travel Agent Who Allegedly Facilitated Renewal for Suspected Terrorist

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Section 482 petition by a Mangaluru travel agent charged with furnishing fabricated addresses in fifteen passport renewal applications, one of which benefited a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 18 June 2026, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Sri. U.M. Haidar, a physically disabled travel agent from Mangaluru, who sought to quash criminal proceedings pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mangaluru in C.C. No. 168 of 2021. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, held that the allegations against the petitioner — that he furnished his own address in fifteen passport renewal applications and thereby facilitated the renewal of a passport for a person suspected of terrorist links — were of sufficient gravity to require a full trial. The court found that pleas of physical disability and bona fide conduct could not eclipse the seriousness of the charge.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Sri. U.M. Haidar, aged about 60 years and resident of Falnir, Mangaluru, runs a travel agency at Kudamane House, Uppena Angadi, in Puttur Taluk. He was arrayed as accused No. 3 in a criminal case registered at Mangalore East Police Station. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12B of the Passports Act, 1967.

The complaint originated when a police constable who had approved police verification for several passport renewal applications came to know that one Ibrahim Khaleel — accused No. 1 in the case — was a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad. The constable had cleared verification for fifteen applications, all of which had been routed through the petitioner's travel agency. The petitioner's name did not appear in the First Information Report at the time the crime was registered. It was only after investigation and the filing of the charge sheet that he was drawn in as accused No. 3.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, contending that he was a bona fide travel agent who had merely facilitated the submission of applications for police verification and passport renewal, and that no criminal intent could be attributed to him.

The Charge Sheet Allegations

The charge sheet, as summarised in column No. 17, set out the specific role attributed to the petitioner. According to the prosecution, between 1 September 2010 and 15 September 2013, the petitioner — acting in concert with accused No. 2 — furnished his own travel agency address as the residential address of fifteen different passport applicants. On the strength of these applications, police verification was completed and passports were renewed, including the passport of Ibrahim Khaleel (accused No. 1) and one Mohammed Husain (accused No. 4). The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner had fabricated documents and facilitated the procurement of passports from the Bengaluru Passport Office through fraudulent means.

The Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore Division, was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India. The State was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor.

Arguments on Each Side

Sri. Parameshwarappa M.V., appearing for the petitioner, argued that Haidar had only processed applications that came to him in the ordinary course of his travel agency business. The facilitation of police verification, he submitted, was a routine function of a travel agent, and no fault could be found with his conduct. The petitioner's physical disability was also placed before the court as a mitigating circumstance.

Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Regional Passport Office, countered that the petitioner's own address appeared in all fifteen passport applications in place of the genuine residential addresses of the applicants. He submitted that the petitioner had thereby enabled a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad to obtain a passport contrary to law, and that the matter was not one for interference at the pre-trial stage. Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Special Public Prosecutor for the State, endorsed this position, pointing out that the police constable who had cleared all fifteen verifications was also under scrutiny.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Nagaprasanna found that the facts were largely undisputed and borne out by the record. The petitioner's name had not surfaced at the time of registration of the crime, but the charge sheet brought his role into “considerable clarity.”

The court drew a clear distinction between two categories of travel agents. A travel agent who performs lawful clerical functions occupies one position in law; a travel agent who becomes a conduit for the creation or use of fabricated credentials stands on an altogether different footing. The court held that whether the petitioner acted with knowledge, intent, or culpable negligence was a question that could only be resolved at trial.

The court rejected the plea of physical disability and bona fide conduct as grounds for quashing. It observed that such pleas, however sympathetic, could not override the gravity of the allegations. The allegation was not one of mere clerical facilitation. By furnishing fabricated residential addresses, the petitioner was said to have enabled the renewal of a passport for a person suspected of activities inimical to national security. The court held that such allegations, if established, “transcend ordinary criminal misconduct and enter the realm of conduct prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the Nation.”

The court also addressed the position of the police constable who had cleared verification for all fifteen applications routed through the petitioner's agency. It held that the constable's conduct could not escape judicial scrutiny. If verification was granted without proper field inquiry or due diligence, such dereliction could amount to a serious breach of public duty. The State Public Prosecutor informed the court that sanction to prosecute the constable had already been sought and was pending before the competent authority. The court directed that this proposal be processed with promptitude.

Justice Nagaprasanna articulated a broader principle: national security is not imperilled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts, but equally by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The court stated that “the law must therefore reach every link in the chain.”

The court was careful to clarify that all observations made in the order were confined to the consideration of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and would not bind or influence the further proceedings against the petitioner in the trial court.

Outcome

The petition was dismissed. The court found no merit in the prayer to quash C.C. No. 168 of 2021 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mangaluru. The petitioner, Sri. U.M. Haidar, must now face trial on charges under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12B of the Passports Act, 1967. The State was directed to process the pending sanction proposal against the police constable who cleared the fifteen passport verifications with promptitude.