The order was issued by a civil judge and judicial magistrate in Devanahalli, under whose jurisdiction the airport falls, following a complaint filed by J S Sathishkumar, chairman of a medical institution based in Salem, Tamil Nadu.

According to the complaint, the incident took place on June 19, 2024, when Sathishkumar and seven members of his family were scheduled to travel from Bengaluru to Peru.

The family had booked eight non-refundable business-class tickets costing approximately ₹49 lakh, with a return journey planned for July 3, 2024.

Despite arriving at the airport well in advance and completing initial procedures, they were reportedly denied boarding shortly before departure.

Airline staff cited the absence of a Peruvian visa as the reason for denying boarding. However, Sathishkumar has disputed this, claiming that the airline failed to correctly interpret entry requirements.

He stated that Indian passport holders with valid visas or residence permits from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, or Schengen nations are eligible for visa-free entry into Peru.

The alleged misinterpretation, he argued, resulted in the family being unfairly prevented from boarding their flight.

Following the complaint, the court directed police to register an FIR against top executives of KLM, including its CEO and COO, marking a significant development in the case.

The move raises broader questions about the responsibility of airlines in verifying passenger documentation and ensuring accurate interpretation of international travel regulations.

The complaint further alleges that after the family protested the decision and indicated legal action, they were 'red-flagged' by the airline.

Sathishkumar claimed this led to complications during subsequent travel. His son was reportedly stopped in Singapore and questioned about a supposed deportation from Peru—despite never having entered the country.

He also reported facing repeated questioning during a trip to Australia over the same issue.

In its response, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines stated that it is obligated to comply with all applicable travel and immigration regulations. The airline emphasised that passengers are responsible for ensuring they carry valid and correct travel documents before departure.

It also expressed regret over the inconvenience caused to passengers.

The incident has sparked debate over passenger rights, airline accountability, and the need for clarity in visa and entry requirements. Legal experts note that such cases could set precedents regarding the extent of airline responsibility in international travel disputes.

Sathishkumar has stated that the issue goes beyond compensation, stressing the need for accountability to prevent similar incidents in the future.

With the court ordering an FIR, the case is set to proceed through legal channels, potentially shaping future standards in airline operations and passenger rights. As investigations unfold, the outcome could have wider implications for international travel protocols and airline liability.