Allahabad High Court
Father Dominic Pinto vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21082 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3045 of 2025 Applicant :- Father Dominic Pinto Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sardar Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India/Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS has been filed with the following main reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 17, Barabanki arising out of Case Crime No. 0058/2024 (State vs Father Domnic Pinto & ors.) under sections 3, 5 (1) U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act, Police Station- Dewa District Barabanki whereby the application dated 17.12.2024 filed by the applicant for seeking permission to obtain passport has been rejected."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had moved an application before the court concerned for grant of permission/No Objection Certificate for issuance of a passport in favour of the applicant. The said application preferred by the applicant was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.3.2025 by placing reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Umapati Vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Exernal Affairs New Delhi and 3 others, Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC-LKO:44148-DB.
4. Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India/Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has very fairly brought on record a judgement of this Court dated 16.1.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 281 of 2025 (Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and another) wherein the judgement in the case of Umapati (Supra) has been held to be per-incuriam as it has not been discussed the settled proposition of law in several cases and directed that the applicant/petitioner may apply for No Objection Certificate/permission from the court of criminal jurisdiction where the aforesaid criminal case is pending in pursuance of the notifications dated 25.8.1993 and 10.10.2019. The relevant extract of the judgement is quoted hereinbelow:
"3. ............The submission is that this judgment dated 25.06.2024 has been rendered in ignorance of and without considering earlier judgments on the same subject by the Co-ordinate Benches. He has also invited our attention to various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein the law of precedents has been discussed and it has been held that in the event, there being conflicting judgments of Co-ordinate Benches, it is the earlier judgment which should be followed especially in a case where the subsequent Division Bench has not considered the earlier Division Bench judgment. These decisions have been rendered in Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2023 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18727 of 2023) 'Union Territory of Ladakh and ors. vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and Ors.' dated 06.09.2023; (2017) 16 SCC 680 'National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi' which in fact is a Constitution Bench judgment on the same issue; 'Chandra Prakash and Ors. vs. State of U.P.' (2002) 4 SCC 234; 'Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh' (1989) 2 SCC 754; 'Pradip Chandra Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik' (2002) 1 SCC Page 1; 'Rattiram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' (2012) 4 SCC 516; 'National Telephone Company Ltd vs Post Master General' 1913 AC546 (HL) and 'Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharastra' (2014) 6 SCC 623. He has specifically referred to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rattiram (supra) wherein the question of conflict between two judgments rendered by benches of equal strength specifically came up for consideration and a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court relying upon Constitution Bench decision in Raghubir Singh (supra) and other decisions on the subject held that earlier decision was a binding precedent and when in ignorance of it, subsequent decision has been rendered, the concept of per incuriam would come into play.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that petitioner should seek requisite No-Objection Certificate/ permission from the court of criminal jurisdiction where the aforesaid criminal case is pending trial and if the N.O.C. or permission is granted by the trial court then the Passport Officer shall take a decision on the application of the petitioner dated 04.12.2023 for issuance of passport in the light of the aforesaid Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 at the earliest say within three weeks of submission of such N.O.C. / permission. However, if the permission/ N.O.C. is not granted then of course, the matter shall rest as it is with further opportunity to the petitioner to raise grievance before the appropriate forum. While considering the application of the petitioner for grant of No-Objection Certificate/ permission, the court below shall consider his claim in the light of Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 and the judgments and the decisions cited hereinabove wherein directions have been issued to seek such permission from the court where the criminal case is pending copy of which shall be provided by the petitioner to the court below."
5. Learned AGA has adopted the averments made by Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India/Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed above, the present application is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.3.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki arising out of Case Crime No. 0058/2024 (State Vs. Father Domnic Pinto and others) is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the court concerned to reconsider the application of the applicant for grant of No Objection Certificate/permission for issuance of passport in the light of the notifications dated 25.8.1993 and 10.10.2019, expeditiously.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025 AKK