ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. S.R. Doddawad, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Petitioner was issued with passport on 05.06.2008 which was due to expire on 04.06.2018. Hence, petitioner filed an application for reissue/renewal of his passport on 13.02.2018. Respondent No. 2 by communication dated 07.03.2018 intimated the petitioner that he had suppressed the material fact with regard to details of Crime No. 509/2016 which had been registered against him and the fact of ‘B’ report having been submitted before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and this information had not been furnished and as such, called upon the petitioner to give explanation for suppression of facts by issuance of notice dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure-K). At that juncture, petitioner said to have visited the office of respondent No. 2 and made attempts to explain factual scenario relating to Crime No. 509/2016 which has since ended in filing ‘B’ report and on such explanation being offered, respondent No. is said to have informed petitioner to obtain necessary orders from the jurisdictional Court for reissue/renewal of passport. Hence, petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to renew the passport issued to him or reissue fresh passport. 3. Records on hand would disclose that on the basis of complaint lodged by one Sri T.R. Prasad Gowda, F.I.R. was registered against petitioner as well as three others in Crime No. 509/2016 by Byatarayanapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The jurisdictional police after completing investigation, has filed ‘B’ report. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has afforded an opportunity to the complainant to file objection to said ‘B’ report and accordingly, complainant has filed his protest memo on 03.03.2018 and had also tendered his sworn statement in part. For recording further sworn statement, the matter came to be adjourned to 04.08.2018 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is the contention of Sri. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has afforded an opportunity to the complainant to file objection to said ‘B’ report and accordingly, complainant has filed his protest memo on 03.03.2018 and had also tendered his sworn statement in part. For recording further sworn statement, the matter came to be adjourned to 04.08.2018 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is the contention of Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that in the light of there being no proceedings pending against petitioner and investigating authority having already filed his ‘B’ report, petitioner has no other remedy except approaching this Court seeking for direction to respondent No. 2 to issue passport inasmuch as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not pending and till cognizance of offence is taken summons is issued to accused including petitioner. Hence, he prays for suitable directions being issued. 4. Per contra, Sri S.R. Doddawad, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents by relying upon Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 and the extant Notification bearing No. G.S.R. 570(E) issued by Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.08.1993 has contended that petitioner may be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for seeking permission to go abroad and on such orders being passed in favour of petitioner, respondent No. 2 would consider the claim of the petitioner for grant/renewal of passport to petitioner. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders/directions being issued in that regard. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records and as noticed hereinabove, it would clearly emerge therefrom that the jurisdictional police had registered an FIR in Crime No. 509/2016 against petitioner and three others for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and have undisputedly filed ‘B’ report after investigation. Challenging said ‘B’ report, the complainant has filed protest memo. However, on said protest memo no orders have been passed and it is at the stage of recording further sworn statement of the complainant. In identical circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No. 41184/2017 (GM-PASS) disposed of on 26.12.2017 had held to following effect: “It is in this background xxxxxxxxxxx disposed of. However, in the instant case, as could be seen from the records, ‘B’ report has been filed after investigation and no orders have been passed on the objections filed by the complainant to the said ‘B’ report by the jurisdictional Court. However, in the instant case, as could be seen from the records, ‘B’ report has been filed after investigation and no orders have been passed on the objections filed by the complainant to the said ‘B’ report by the jurisdictional Court. Thus, it cannot be said that criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner is still pending. To put it differently, proceedings which had been initiated by the complainant by filing private complaint has been closed by virtue of ‘B’ report having been filed and as such, there is no impediment for the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport.” 6. marked difference which can be noticed in the instant case is that investigation has been done. The proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate is on the basis of police report and not on private complaint. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate on the basis of protest memo filed, has proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant. Even the offence alleged against the petitioner is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life and the fact remains that in respect of another applicant i.e., Sushil Kumar, respondent No. 2 has issued the passport and he has also been arraigned as accused No. 4 in the very same Crime No. 509/2016. Petitioner is aged about 68 years and is intending to go abroad due to medical exigencies. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that direction deserves to be issued to respondent No. 2 in the peculiar circumstances which is present in the case on hand to reissue/renew the passport of petitioner for limited period and by imposing such conditions as it deems fit including security obtaining bond from petitioner if necessary. 8. In these circumstances proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. Writ petition is hereby allowed. 2. Respondent No. is hereby directed to reissue/renew the passport bearing No. Z1733970 of petitioner on such terms and conditions as it deems fit to be imposed including fixation of period which shall not exceed beyond six months or one year as respondent No. deems fit. Ordered accordingly.