Dismissed

Vinay Kumar Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs South Block Sectt. New Delhi and Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024WRIC/8647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an adverse police report and obtain a Police Clearance Certificate for a Canadian visa despite prior conviction under the Arms Act and IPC. Court distinguished a Delhi High Court precedent noting the different nature of the crime, finding the police justified in denying a favourable report due to the conviction involving illegal arms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; adverse police report to be communicated to petitioner within 10 days.

Vinay Kumar Verma vs Union of India Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76103-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8647 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Verma Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs South Block Sectt. New Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra P. Singh,Shashank Vikram Verma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Varun Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

¶8

"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the adverse police verification report dated 24.08.2024 by opp. party no. 3 by which the Police Clearance Report application of the petitioner has been rejected. (As contained Annexure No. 1).

¶9

(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to issue Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner."

¶10

On 16.10.2024, we had passed the following order:-

¶11

" 1. Let the petitioner satisfy the Court as to what is the illegality in the report of the police considering his conviction under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 171 of IPC for which he was inflicted with punishment of fine of Rs.1000/- and also as to how in these circumstances, Police Clearance Certificate can be granted.

¶12

2. List in the next week as fresh."

¶13

Today, the Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a Single Judge Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 01.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 12597 of 2024, Amardeep Singh Bedi Vs. Union of India & Another; wherein according to him, it was held that the rights and interests of the petitioner before the Delhi High Court would be balanced with the respondents' obligation as a sovereign. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondents to issue a Police Clearance Certificate to the said petitioner explicitly mentioning the pending criminal case against him, as well as, the fact that the petitioner has complied with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's order by making the required deposit. The Court in the said case was of the opinion that this would provide complete transparency to the Canadian

¶14

authorities for their assessment of the petitioner's Visa application. The prescribed P.C.C. application as per the Passport Rules, 1980 was modified accordingly.

¶15

The police clearance certificate in this case is required for Visa. The petitioner already has a passport. The police clearance has been denied and an adverse police verification report dated 24.08.2024 has been submitted to the S.S.P., Ayodhya by the local police of Police Station - Gosainganj, Ayodhya, according to which the petitioner has been convicted in Case Crime No. 362 of 2011 under Section 3, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and 171 I.P.C., and has been punished with fine of Rs. 1000/- on the petitioner's confession of his crime, therefore, a favourable police clearance certificate cannot be issued. We do not find any error in the impugned report. Once there is a conviction under the aforesaid provisions, which relates to carrying of illegal arms etc., then the Police is justified in declining to give a favourable report in this regard. No law has been shown before us which could persuade us to interfere in the matter.

¶16

The case cited by the petitioner is not applicable firstly for the reason, in the said case, a criminal case was pending, moreover, the crime alleged therein was of a very different nature i.e. nondeposit of certain contributions under the Provident Fund Act, whereas, in this case, the crime alleged is punishable as an offence under Section 3, 125 of the Arms Act, 1959 and 171 I.P.C., for which, the petitioner has already been convicted.

¶17

We are however of the view that whatever police report, even if it is adverse, the same should be communicated to the petitioner, if he has applied for the same, as this is minimal that is required to be done. Let this be done within 10 days. Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional C.S.C. to communicate this order to the S.S.P., Ayodhya for compliance to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶18

Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶20

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶21

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs South Block Sectt. New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs South Block Sectt. New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd. Furnace Div. Thru Director Vs State of U.P. through Prin.Secy. Energy and Ors.

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd.Ghaziabad Thru Director and Anr. Vs U.P.Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.Lko.Thru DIRECTORandORS

M/S Rathi Steel and Power Ltd.Furnace Div.Thru. Its Director Vs Directorate of Electrical Safety U.P. Thru. Director and Ors.

Hazratpur Kisan Seva Samiti Thru. Auth. Rep. Paramjit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Deepak Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

State Bank of India Thru. Its Chief Manager Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others