High Court

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The instant application has been preferred for challenging the order dated dated 06.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Rampur over the applications preferred at the behest of applicant for seeking permission of renewal/re-issuance of passport, which was already expired on dated 15.01.2022.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of this Court over the reasoning recorded at the time of passing order dated 04.07.2023 in shape of declining the prayer as made at the behest of applicant for renewal/re-issuance of passport that certain criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in shape of Case Crime No.482 of 2013 in pursuance to sections 323, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.6317 of 2013 in pursuance to sections 307, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that only on the basis of criminal proceedings pending as mentioned in order dated 04.07.2023, the prayer has been declined by learned court concerned without giving opportunity for explaining the same, whereas there is hardly any pendency of criminal proceedings against the applicant, but the matters which have been mentioned while passing order dated 04.07.2023 has been given quietus in shape of acquittal in one matter and other one was not related to the applicant.

4. Being aggrieved with the non-extension of time for receiving reply at the behest of applicant, it is the applicant who prefer fresh application on dated 20.09.2023 by way of disclosing the fact that in all the two matters which has been reflected in the order dated

04.07.2023, wherein in Case Crime No.482 of 2013, applicant has already been acquitted vide order dated 20.09.2021 by learned court concerned and in Case Crime No.6317 of 2013, the applicant has never been implicated in any manner whatsoever.

5. Over the application preferred at the behest of applicant, again objection in shape of reply has been submitted by prosecution and at this stage a report has been submitted through the Sub-Inspector, Amar Pal Singh, P.S. Swar, District- Rampur, wherein total number of criminal cases pending against the applicant were shown to the tune of five in numbers, i.e., Case Crime No.317A of 2013, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C.; Case Crime No.482 of 2013, under sections 323, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Case Crime No.474 of 2016, under sections 452, 354A, 307 I.P.C. & section 25 Arms Act; Case Crime No.512 of 2017, under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act.

6. During pendency of second application, a detail reply has already been submitted by applicant in respect of criminal history apprised to the learned court concerned, through which it has been submitted that in Case Crime No.317A of 2013, criminal complaint has already been dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2017; in respect of Case Crime Nos.482 of 2013 and 517 of 2017, the applicant has been acquitted vide orders dated 20.09.2021 and 30.11.2022 respectively; so far as regarding Case Crime No.474 of 2016 is concerned, the entire proceedings has been quashed in pursuance to compromise arrived at between the parties; the only Case Crime No.727 of 2017 is still pending against the applicant under section 25 Arms Act, but the adjudication made by learned court concerned over the application as well as reply submitted at the behest of applicant on dated 06.07.2024 again returned with the finding that in presence of five cases of criminal history pertains to the applicant and being the second application over the same cause of action, the same is not maintainable since earlier also the same made by applicant has already been rejected by the court itself.

7. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the reasoning recorded by learned court concerned is highly illegal and unjustified since the detail reply has already been submitted with regard to criminal history which has been shown as credited against the applicant and it is only one case, wherein the proceedings are still pending against the applicant to be finally adjudicated that too is under section 25 Arms Act and as such the finding returned by learned court concerned while passing order dated 06.07.2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and submitted that at this stage he is not having any specific instructions to reply with the contention raised by learned counsel for applicant.

9. After having submissions extended by learned counsel for applicant, it is clear that the instructions are in fact not required for adjudicating the controversy as raised through the instant application since all the materials related to arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is available in the records.

10. By bare perusal of different orders which is in shape of substantiating the clarification made through affidavit preferred at the behest of applicant on dated 06.10.2023, which is crystal clearly apprised to the learned court concerned that in two cases applicant has already been acquitted and in a complaint case, the same was dismissed under section 203 I.P.C. on dated 14.11.2017 and in another matter, the proceeding have already been quashed in pursuance to compromise entered by both the parties and as such the adjudication of applicant preferred at the behest of applicant for seeking permission in respect of renewal/re-issuance of passport is strictly dependent upon the one case pending in shape of Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act only, but by bare perusal of order which impugned the present applicant, the adjudication has been made on the basis of five cases of criminal history pending against the applicant is liable to be set- aside and the reasoning recorded by learned court concerned with regard to maintainability of second application for same cause of action is also not maintainable since the proper explanation has not been sought at the time of adjudication of first application.

11. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and in the light of observations as made above, both the orders dated 04.07.2023 and 06.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Rampur and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur respectively are hereby set-aside; the matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for adjudicating the application for seeking permission for renewal/re-issuance of passport only in the light of pendency of one case being Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act.

12. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/Saif

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The instant application has been preferred for challenging the order dated dated 06.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Rampur over the applications preferred at the behest of applicant for seeking permission of renewal/re-issuance of passport, which was already expired on dated 15.01.2022.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of this Court over the reasoning recorded at the time of passing order dated 04.07.2023 in shape of declining the prayer as made at the behest of applicant for renewal/re-issuance of passport that certain criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in shape of Case Crime No.482 of 2013 in pursuance to sections 323, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.6317 of 2013 in pursuance to sections 307, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that only on the basis of criminal proceedings pending as mentioned in order dated 04.07.2023, the prayer has been declined by learned court concerned without giving opportunity for explaining the same, whereas there is hardly any pendency of criminal proceedings against the applicant, but the matters which have been mentioned while passing order dated 04.07.2023 has been given quietus in shape of acquittal in one matter and other one was not related to the applicant.

4. Being aggrieved with the non-extension of time for receiving reply at the behest of applicant, it is the applicant who prefer fresh application on dated 20.09.2023 by way of disclosing the fact that in all the two matters which has been reflected in the order dated

04.07.2023, wherein in Case Crime No.482 of 2013, applicant has already been acquitted vide order dated 20.09.2021 by learned court concerned and in Case Crime No.6317 of 2013, the applicant has never been implicated in any manner whatsoever.

5. Over the application preferred at the behest of applicant, again objection in shape of reply has been submitted by prosecution and at this stage a report has been submitted through the Sub-Inspector, Amar Pal Singh, P.S. Swar, District- Rampur, wherein total number of criminal cases pending against the applicant were shown to the tune of five in numbers, i.e., Case Crime No.317A of 2013, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C.; Case Crime No.482 of 2013, under sections 323, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Case Crime No.474 of 2016, under sections 452, 354A, 307 I.P.C. & section 25 Arms Act; Case Crime No.512 of 2017, under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act.

6. During pendency of second application, a detail reply has already been submitted by applicant in respect of criminal history apprised to the learned court concerned, through which it has been submitted that in Case Crime No.317A of 2013, criminal complaint has already been dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2017; in respect of Case Crime Nos.482 of 2013 and 517 of 2017, the applicant has been acquitted vide orders dated 20.09.2021 and 30.11.2022 respectively; so far as regarding Case Crime No.474 of 2016 is concerned, the entire proceedings has been quashed in pursuance to compromise arrived at between the parties; the only Case Crime No.727 of 2017 is still pending against the applicant under section 25 Arms Act, but the adjudication made by learned court concerned over the application as well as reply submitted at the behest of applicant on dated 06.07.2024 again returned with the finding that in presence of five cases of criminal history pertains to the applicant and being the second application over the same cause of action, the same is not maintainable since earlier also the same made by applicant has already been rejected by the court itself.

7. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the reasoning recorded by learned court concerned is highly illegal and unjustified since the detail reply has already been submitted with regard to criminal history which has been shown as credited against the applicant and it is only one case, wherein the proceedings are still pending against the applicant to be finally adjudicated that too is under section 25 Arms Act and as such the finding returned by learned court concerned while passing order dated 06.07.2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and submitted that at this stage he is not having any specific instructions to reply with the contention raised by learned counsel for applicant.

9. After having submissions extended by learned counsel for applicant, it is clear that the instructions are in fact not required for adjudicating the controversy as raised through the instant application since all the materials related to arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is available in the records.

10. By bare perusal of different orders which is in shape of substantiating the clarification made through affidavit preferred at the behest of applicant on dated 06.10.2023, which is crystal clearly apprised to the learned court concerned that in two cases applicant has already been acquitted and in a complaint case, the same was dismissed under section 203 I.P.C. on dated 14.11.2017 and in another matter, the proceeding have already been quashed in pursuance to compromise entered by both the parties and as such the adjudication of applicant preferred at the behest of applicant for seeking permission in respect of renewal/re-issuance of passport is strictly dependent upon the one case pending in shape of Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act only, but by bare perusal of order which impugned the present applicant, the adjudication has been made on the basis of five cases of criminal history pending against the applicant is liable to be set- aside and the reasoning recorded by learned court concerned with regard to maintainability of second application for same cause of action is also not maintainable since the proper explanation has not been sought at the time of adjudication of first application.

11. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and in the light of observations as made above, both the orders dated 04.07.2023 and 06.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Rampur and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur respectively are hereby set-aside; the matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for adjudicating the application for seeking permission for renewal/re-issuance of passport only in the light of pendency of one case being Case Crime No.727 of 2017, under section 25 Arms Act.

12. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/Saif