Islam vs State of U.P.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20934

¶2

Court No. 75

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶4

Application U/S 482 No. 32636 of 2024

¶5

Islam	… v/s	Applicant
State of U.P.	…	Opposite Party

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials on record.

¶9

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 814 of 2021 (State vs. Islam), arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2020, under Sections 279, 304A IPC, P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat and order dated 05.08.2024 in Case No. 349 of 2021 (State vs. Islam), arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Sections 171H, 188 IPC, P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat, whereby the application to renew the passport of the applicant has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts, circumstances of the case and without considering notification and guidelines, which has been issued by the Central Government with regard to permission to go abroad in the situation when the case (s) is/are registered against the applicant.

¶11

1 of 5

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant filed an application before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat with a prayer to renew his passport but due to pendency of the aforesaid cases being Case Nos. 814 of 2021 and 349 of 2021, the Regionaal Passport Officer denied to issue the Passport in his favour.

¶13

The applicant is a farmer and social worker and helps for down traders in his village and the area concern and unfortunately three criminal cases have been registered against him in which one case regarding the offence of Covid in which vide order dated 13.07.2024 learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C., Baghpat accepted the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. of Public Prosecutor and dropped the proceeding of the case and in other two cases the applicant was released on bail by the court below. The applicant applied for renewal of his passport but the Passport Office has rejected his application and said that the applicant bring the permission of the court, therefore, the applicant applied seeking permission to go for Haj and the learned Magistrate has rejected the application holding that the criminal cases are pending against applicant.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has not denied the factual position and admitted that there no other document remains to be filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgement of this Court in Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others, 2019 (132) All Law Report 286 (D.B.) in which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has permitted the petitioner to move an application for grant of permission to go abroad, before the court concerned where the criminal proceeding was pending and if permission is granted then the petitioner shall be given liberty to produce before Passport Officer along with the permission granted by the court for issuance of passport. The relevant part of the order of Bench of this Court is quoted hereinbelow:

¶16

"The argument that Section 6(2)(f) was arbitrary and unreasonable was repelled, however, considering the Notification dated 25.08.1993 quoted hereinabove it was held that the restriction under Section 6(2)(f) was not absolute but the same can be relaxed in appropriate cases with the permission of the Court in

¶17

2 of 5

¶18

which the criminal proceedings are pending. The Court in fact held that the object behind the aforesaid provisions appeared to be that permitting a person facing criminal charges to go abroad was against the interest of the State and Society at large, however, as already mentioned hereinabove in view of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 it was held that the restriction was not absolute. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner should move an appropriate application before the Court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial is pending against him seeking permission to go abroad. If such permission is granted then the petitioner may move appropriate application before the competent Authority of the Passport department of the Government of India citing the judgment referred hereinabove as also the Notification dated 25.08.1993 for issuance of a Passport which shall be considered accordingly in the light of the law on the subject."

¶19

In the light of the above judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order impugned passed by Civil Judge(J. D.)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is bad in the eye of law.

¶20

The Govt. of India has promulgated a notification no. GSRS70(E). The guidelines of the said notification are quoted herein below:-

¶21

"G.S.R. 570(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs no. G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

¶22

(a) the passport to the issued to every such citizen shall be issued--

¶23

3 of 5

¶24

(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or

¶25

(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year,

¶26

(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

¶27

(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.

¶28

(b) any passport issued in terms of a(ii) and a(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;

¶29

(c) any passport issued in terms of a(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;

¶30

(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

¶31

[No.VI/401/37/79] L.K. PONAPPA, Jt. Secy. (CPV)"

¶32

The provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 read as under:"22. Power to exempt.--Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification,--

¶33

4 of 5

¶34

(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; and

¶35

(b) as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions."

¶36

I have gone through the impugned orders and other relevant materials. The applicant is an accused of Case No. 814 of 2021 (State vs. Islam), arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2020, under Sections 279, 304A IPC, P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat and Case No. 349 of 2021 (State vs. Islam), arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Sections 171H, 188 IPC, P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat. As per notification dated 25.8.1993, it was held that the restriction was not absolute.

¶37

In the light of above judgement, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed in the aforesaid cases are, hereby quashed giving liberty to the applicant to move a proper application seeking permission to go abroad before the court concerned where the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is pending and if the permission is granted to the applicant by the court concerned, then the applicant may produce the permission before the Passport Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with the Circular dated 25.8.1993 and pass appropriate order in this respect within a period of one month from the date of producing of the permission granted by the competent court.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of finally.

¶39

Order Date :- 14.02.2025

¶40

MAA/-

¶41

(Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori)

¶42

5 of 5

¶43

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Islam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manju and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harishchandra Kokru and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamlal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Jain vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumari Rupal Sonkar Alias Neha vs State of U.P.