✦ High Court of India · 07 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
07 Mar 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,220 words

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers :- "[i]- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to process the passport application of the petitioner without undue delay, [ii]- pass any other order or direction to the respondent no. 4 to issue NOC or clearance on application of the petitioner. [iii]- directing to opposite parties to accept permission granted by trial Court."

3. The counsel for the petitioner says that the passport application of the petitioner is not being considered only because F.I.R. No.0144 of 2022 has been registered on 01.06.2022 at Police Station Dhammour, District Sultanpur, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against him.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has pointed out an order passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.04.2024 in Writ-C No.3456 of 2024 titled Gyaneshwar Jaiswal vs. Union of India and others.

5. We have gone though the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, a copy of which has been produced before this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.04.2024 is being quoted herein below :- "4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement and order rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023, Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2023, wherein the Court had observed that only because of the pendency of one criminal case, the renewal of passport cannot be refused by the Regional Passport OfÏcer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by us in Writ-C No.3188 of 2024, Siddharth Anand Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein we had considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (IA 52346 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No(s).1343 of 2017) and also the judgement and orders rendered by this Court in Writ-C No.29605 of 2022, Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others, decided on 16.12.2022 and in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023, Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2023 (supra), but taking into account the observations of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.31723 (MB) of 2018, Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 20.11.2018 we had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court, which would pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on the conditions which it deems appropriate. The observations made by us in the judgement and order dated 10.04.2024 are relevant for decision of this controversy and they are being quoted herein below:- "3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the renewal of passport has not been undertaken by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is only one criminal case pending against him. It has also been submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (IA 52346/2021 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1343/2017), has held that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for non-renewal of passport.

5. We have gone through the judgement rendered in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) and finds that the judgement therein related to a case where the applicant was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo two years' imprisonment. The applicant filed a Criminal Appeal, in which Criminal Appeal the High Court was pleased to modify the sentence and reduced it to one year's imprisonment. The Supreme Court after considering Section 6.2(e) has held that since conviction is of only one year, renewal of passport cannot be refused. The judgement of the Supreme Court as cited is not applicable to the petitioner herein in so far as Section 5 sub-Section (2)(f) relating to pendency of criminal proceedings in the Trial Court is concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by this Court in Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others (Writ-C No.29605 of 2022, dt. 16.12.2022), wherein this Court has considered the reference of the said judgement made in the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023: Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and 2 others, and found that in the case of Basoo Yadav (supra), a Non- Cognizable Report No.111 of 2012 and Non- Cognizable Report No.114 of 2018 was taken note of by the Passport OfÏcer and the issuance of passport was refused to the petitioner Basoo Yadav.

7. In the case of the petitioner, undisputedly the petitioner is an accused in Case Crime No.0402 of 2021 relating to Police Station Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, where charge-sheet has been filed under Section 504, 506 and 323 of the I.P.C.

8. This Court finds that the judgement rendered in Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, or even in Basoo Yadav (supra), is not applicable to the petitioner in view of the law settled by Division Bench of this Court in Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.31723 (M/B) of 2018; decided on 20.11.2018.

9. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court, which will pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate and only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer."

6. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court, which will pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate and only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer."

6. This writ petition is disposed of in the same terms with the direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court concerned by moving an appropriate application. The trial court concerned will pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate. Only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 7.3.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers :- "[i]- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to process the passport application of the petitioner without undue delay, [ii]- pass any other order or direction to the respondent no. 4 to issue NOC or clearance on application of the petitioner. [iii]- directing to opposite parties to accept permission granted by trial Court."

3. The counsel for the petitioner says that the passport application of the petitioner is not being considered only because F.I.R. No.0144 of 2022 has been registered on 01.06.2022 at Police Station Dhammour, District Sultanpur, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against him.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has pointed out an order passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.04.2024 in Writ-C No.3456 of 2024 titled Gyaneshwar Jaiswal vs. Union of India and others.

5. We have gone though the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, a copy of which has been produced before this Court. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.04.2024 is being quoted herein below :- "4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement and order rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023, Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2023, wherein the Court had observed that only because of the pendency of one criminal case, the renewal of passport cannot be refused by the Regional Passport OfÏcer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by us in Writ-C No.3188 of 2024, Siddharth Anand Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein we had considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (IA 52346 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No(s).1343 of 2017) and also the judgement and orders rendered by this Court in Writ-C No.29605 of 2022, Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others, decided on 16.12.2022 and in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023, Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2023 (supra), but taking into account the observations of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.31723 (MB) of 2018, Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 20.11.2018 we had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court, which would pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on the conditions which it deems appropriate. The observations made by us in the judgement and order dated 10.04.2024 are relevant for decision of this controversy and they are being quoted herein below:- "3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the renewal of passport has not been undertaken by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is only one criminal case pending against him. It has also been submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (IA 52346/2021 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1343/2017), has held that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for non-renewal of passport.

5. We have gone through the judgement rendered in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) and finds that the judgement therein related to a case where the applicant was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo two years' imprisonment. The applicant filed a Criminal Appeal, in which Criminal Appeal the High Court was pleased to modify the sentence and reduced it to one year's imprisonment. The Supreme Court after considering Section 6.2(e) has held that since conviction is of only one year, renewal of passport cannot be refused. The judgement of the Supreme Court as cited is not applicable to the petitioner herein in so far as Section 5 sub-Section (2)(f) relating to pendency of criminal proceedings in the Trial Court is concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by this Court in Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others (Writ-C No.29605 of 2022, dt. 16.12.2022), wherein this Court has considered the reference of the said judgement made in the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench in Writ-C No.29346 of 2023: Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and 2 others, and found that in the case of Basoo Yadav (supra), a Non- Cognizable Report No.111 of 2012 and Non- Cognizable Report No.114 of 2018 was taken note of by the Passport OfÏcer and the issuance of passport was refused to the petitioner Basoo Yadav.

7. In the case of the petitioner, undisputedly the petitioner is an accused in Case Crime No.0402 of 2021 relating to Police Station Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, where charge-sheet has been filed under Section 504, 506 and 323 of the I.P.C.

8. This Court finds that the judgement rendered in Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, or even in Basoo Yadav (supra), is not applicable to the petitioner in view of the law settled by Division Bench of this Court in Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.31723 (M/B) of 2018; decided on 20.11.2018.

9. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court, which will pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate and only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer."

6. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court, which will pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate and only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer."

6. This writ petition is disposed of in the same terms with the direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court concerned by moving an appropriate application. The trial court concerned will pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law for granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad on conditions which it deems appropriate. Only thereafter his case for issuance of passport can be considered by the Regional Passport OfÏcer. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 7.3.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments