Allahabad High Court
Rashid Kuraishi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136600 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2300 of 2025 Applicant :- Rashid Kuraishi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Intekhab Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Rajak,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2015 (State vs. Muslim Kuraishi & Others), arising out of N.C.R. No. 32 of 2011, Case Crime No. 253A of 2011, under Sections 324, 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is resident of Village-Railway Station Near Tajpur, Post-Tajpur Dehma, District-Ghazipur. Applicant is businessman and engaged in business of wooden tick and other wooden article and for the purpose of growth in his business, he is willing to go abroad and applied for passport on 19.12.2023. After checking the status of the process through online, it was found that police verification report is not clear and application is under review and Regional Passport Office has not issued the passport in favour of applicant as an N.C.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 28.03.2011 being N.C.R. No. 32 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur. Applicant being aggrieved on non issuance of passport by Regional Passport Office filed a Writ-C No. 5846 of 2024 (Rashid Kuraishi Vs. Union of India & Others) before this Hon'ble Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024 disposed of the writ petition with following observation:-
"1. Petitioner is aggrieved by pendency of his application for issuance of passport.
2. The facts of the present case are identical to those in Writ - C No. 41540 of 2023 (Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors.). That writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 19.01.2024, in the following terms:
"26. Paragraph 2 of Part A of the existing form for Police Verification Report reads:
"2. Is the applicant facing any criminal charges in any Court ? Yes / No (if YES, please provide specific details of the criminal case)"
Thus, as to the modalities to enforce the above, as suggested by Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate, henceforth all police reports submitted to the Regional Passport Office would specify against the above field the desired/relevant information as below:
(1) In 'Part A' of the Police Verification Report (submitted through online mode), against item '2', for the time being, option 'YES' may be selected in all cases where either a NCR and/or FIR may be found registered against the applicant. Second in that field (that may then be activated), details of such NCR and/or FIR may be given on the following format:
NCR No. ...................; P.S; .....................
AND/OR FIR No.................... ; U/s ..................(section description); P.S. (details of Police Station), ............ under Court (Court details) ..........................
27. On the above intimation being received, the Regional Passport Offices, for the State of Uttar Pradesh shall ensure: (1) Such minimum information is uploaded on its web portal visible to the individual applicant. In addition, whenever any FIR may be registered, that web portal would indicate to the applicant to apply and obtain permission from the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, before his application may be processed. (2) That information may also be communicated to the applicant by issuance of a physical notice as before. (3) The Union of India/respondent No. 1 may upgrade its infrastructure to (i) ensure sending intimation of such notice to the applicant through appropriate message on his mobile phone, wherever such details are available. (ii) upload the entire notice on its web portal. Demand of good e-governance may prompt such step to be taken expeditiously, as has already been done in case of fiscal statutes. (4) As fairly stated by the learned A.S.G.I., in cases where any NCR may be registered, the necessary Passport may be issued, reissued, renewed, as the case may be, without any delay. No permission may be sought or required from the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, in those cases.
28. Considering the time required by an applicant to apply to the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and the time that may be consumed in grant of such prayer, the Regional Passport Office, Uttar Pradesh may also ensure that the intimation of pendency of criminal proceeding is shared with the applicant at the earliest i.e. within one week from the date of receipt of such intimation from the relevant State Authority. Thereupon, adequate time-not less than eight weeks may be granted to the concerned applicant to obtain that permission and inform the Regional Passport Office, accordingly. During that period his application may be kept pending. Once due permission is received the Regional Passport Officer may not delay the issuance, re-issuance, renewal of passport beyond one week from receipt of such information.
29. As to the further course to be adopted we do not make any observation and leave it to the Regional Passport Officer and the State Authorities to continue to act in accordance with law. In that regard, we have been apprised of certain directions issued by other High Courts requiring a deep revision of the procedures. The present order does not seek to add or modify any such order. We only seek to ensure efficiency under the current procedures .
30. Last we clarify that these directions have been issued in addition to and not by way of substitution of any direction issued in the case of Basoo Yadav (supra).
31. In so far as the present petitioners are concerned, we require the State Authorities to send fresh intimation to the Regional Passport Officer in compliance of these directions, within a period of two weeks from today. The Regional Passport Office shall act in accordance with these directions and issue necessary communications to the individual petitioners, in writing.
32. Since two month time has been granted to all individual applicants, therefore, subject to the petitioners applying to the concerned Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of intimation from the Regional Passport Office, we expect the concerned Courts to pass appropriate orders not later than four weeks therefrom. However, in cases involving urgency, those orders may be made expeditiously, commensurate to the urgency cited."
3. For the same facts and on the same reasoning, the present petition is also disposed of, on the same terms and conditions."
4. In the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2024, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that applicant can approach the court concerned within two weeks for issuance of no objection certificate/issuance of passport in favour of the applicant. Applicant filed application on 09.07.2024 before First Additional Session Judge, Ghazipur seeking permission to obtain as per the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 5846 of 2024 (Rashid Kuraishi Vs. Union of India & Others). First Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur without considering the observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in order dated 26.02.2024 and without applying its judicial mind in most arbitrary and illegal manner rejected the application of the applicant vide its order dated 18.07.2024, which is impugned herein.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that applicant wants to extend his business to abroad, therefore, he applied for passport but the same has been rejected. He next submits that that applicant is co-operating with the trail proceedings, which is evident from the order-sheet of the court below. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 992, Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another; AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 597 as well as of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 3846 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.); dated 26.04.2024, Application U/S 482 No. 9518 of 2019 (Smt. Madhu Tyagi And Another vs. State of U.P. And Another); dated 11.03.2019, Writ- C No. 5587 of 2024 (Umapati vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi And 3 Others); dated 25.06.2024.
6. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the notification of Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993, which is being quoted hereunder:-
"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:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued -
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(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;
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed fr 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.
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis f a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
(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."
7. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 is totally illegal, perverse and arbitrary as the same is passed without application of judicial mind and also without considering the notification of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that applicant is not co-operating with the trial proceedings and another first information report has also been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons in West Bengal registered as F.I.R. No. 0305 of 2025, under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station- Rajarhat, District- Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate. It is alleged in the said first information report that applicant claimed to be the owner of 'Gist Global Limited' and 'Lumeo Infra Private Limited' named companies and later he introduced the complainant with other alleged persons and insisted him to invest money in their companies by promising good return, believing them he invested Rs.1 lakh in February, 2022 but they continued to insist the complainant to invest more money, so by the end of November, 2022, he invested total amount of Rs. 1,11,57,100/- but after this the alleged persons did not provide any return to the complainant and their website found to be stopped, later, Rashid Kuraishi (present applicant) issued seven cheques of Rs.70 lakhs but all the cheques were dishonoured due to stoppage of payment. He further submits that on perusal of order-sheet of court below, it is apparent that applicant is deliberately avoiding the trial proceedings.
9. Learned A.G.A. has stated in his counter affidavit that charges have been framed against the applicant on 10.08.2015 and after framing of charges during trial on some particular dates, applicant put his appearance and mostly he sought adjourment. Further, co-accused persons also failed to appear before the learned Trail Court. No witness has been examined since last nine years. Only dates have been fixed and on the date fixed accused persons failed to appear, as such, no witness has been examined. Charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, the said offences are grievous in nature.
*** Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi:-
No. VI/401/1/5/2019 Government of India Ministry of External Affairs PSP Division Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg New Delhi, the l0th October 2019 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Issue of passports to applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before a court of law in India.
Reference is invited to Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 regarding issuance of passports to applicants who have criminal proceedings pending against them and whose applications would attract the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.
2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is reproduced below for reference:
"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:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued -
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(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;
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed fr 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.
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis f a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
(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.?
3. It may be noted that applicants may be refused passports only on grounds mentioned under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act states that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document to an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant arc pending before a criminal court in India. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 was introduced to give relief to such applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending before any Court of law in India but who may need to travel abroad for some urgent business. With an undertaking under GSR 570(E) and an order from the Court, an applicant could be issued a short validity passport of one year validity for the period specified by the Court.
4. It has been noticed that there are an increasing number of references being received regarding passport applications attracting Section 6(2)(f). It has also been brought to Ministry?s notice that there are a number of complex issues involved while processing such applications. During the proceedings in a recent court case, the Hon?ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) No. 2844/2018 /CRL.M.A. 48674/2018 has directed that guidelines be issued by the Ministry reiterating the procedure for processing of such applications and emphasizing that such applications need to be processed with due care and diligence.
5. In view of the above, the following instructions may be adopted while processing the passport applications in respect of those applicants who may have criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court in India:
(i) The provisions of GSR 570 (E) may be strictly applied in all case. GSR 570 (E) is a statutory notification and hence, forms part of the Rules. It is to be noted that as per Section 5 (2) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority shall be order in writing take a decision whether to issue or refuse a passport, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary. Moreover, Section 7 of the Passports Act, provides that a passport or travel document may be issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or travel document should be issued for a shorter period. Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 only states that an ordinary passport shall be in force for a period of 10 years which implies that an ordinary passport cannot be issued beyond a period of 10 years.
(ii) Whenever an applicant is submitting a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from a Court of law in India, the applicant should be advised that undertaking as per GSR 570(E) should be complete in all respects and should mention all the pending criminal cases against the applicant. The undertaking will have a not clearly stating that if any false or incomplete information is submitted by an applicant, then his passport application is liable to be rejected.
(iii) Extant instructions clearly lay down that such applications should be processed on pre- Police Verification (PV) mode. ?Pre-PV? would be mandatory in all cases of applications submitted with GSR 570(E) to ensure that the undertaking submitted by the applicant is properly matched with the criminal cases mentioned in the Police Verification Report (PVR). Hence, such applications should not be accepted under Tatkaal nor such applications be moved to ?post-PV? mode or ?No-PV? mode without proper justification and approval to be recorded in writing.
(iv) If an undertaking is incomplete or misleading and the applicant is found to have suppressed details of other criminal cases against the applicant, a Show Cause Notice should be issued to the applicant and action initiated against that applicant as per provisions of Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. If information that an applicant has obtained a passport by making a false submission or by suppressing material facts comes to light after the passport has been issued, the passport may be impounded or revoked as per provision of Section 10 (3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 after following the due procedure.
(v) In case where the first police verification (PV) is 'Adverse', secondary police verification may be generated. While a secondary PV is generated, it should be accompanied by a detailed letter seeking clarification regarding the pending criminal cases against the applicant and the status of these cases. Apart from generating secondary PVR, the passport officers may, if considered necessary, call for discreet enquiry through the police authorities by sending the court order submitted by the applicant or even seek verification from other government agencies/departments, as the case may be.
(vi) In case where the secondary Police Verification is also 'Adverse', it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant. It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
(vii) If the details given in the police report and the undertaking submitted by the applicant are matching, then the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by a Court of law submitted by the applicant would take precedence over any 'Adverse' report submitted by the police. In such cases, the 'Adverse' report may be overruled with the written approval of the Passport Officer.
(viii) If the details given in the PVR and the undertaking submitted by the applicant are at variance, then a notice may be issued to the applicant calling for clarification and advising the applicant to submit details of all pending criminal cases as well as to submit a revised No Objection Certificate (NOC).
(ix) If it is brought to the notice of the authority that an applicant has criminal proceedings arrayed against applicant before several courts of law, then the applicant may be advised to get NOC from all the concerned court (s). Normally, the Court Order would make a mention of the cases pending against the applicant as well as the prayer made by the applicant. This may be examined along with the undertaking submitted by the applicant and complaints or other court orders, if any, that have been received against the applicant.
(x) It may noted that GSR 570(E) only exempts and applicant from the operation of Section 6 (2)(f) and none of the other sub-sections of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.
(xi) A revised Undertaking under GSR 570(E) is attached at Annexure 'A'.
(xii) Passport Officers may issue an internal SOP along the above lines so that there is no confusion in handling of applications that would attract provisions of section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
6. The above instructions may be noted for strict compliance with immediate effect.
Annexure 'A' UNDERTAKING (to be submitted on plain paper as per provisions of GSR-570(E) dated 25.08.1993) I am applying/have applied for passport with the following details:-
(a) Name :.......................................?
(b) Date of Birth :.........................................
(c)Father's Name :......................................?
(d)Mother's Name :......................................?
(e) Present Address :.......................................?
(f) File No./ARN No. :................................ Date:............?
2. The Criminal case(s) with following details is/are pending against me:
(if more than one case is pending, details of all cases may be provided. Additional sheet giving complete information may be attached)
(a) Case No. :.........................................?
(b) Name of Court :.........................................?
(c) Details of Investigating Agency (Please provide details of Police station Investigating Officer, etc.) :..........................................?
(d)Last date of hearing :...........................................?
(e)Next date of hearing :..........................................?
3. I hereby undertake that I shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.
4. I am aware that it is an offence under the Passports Act, 1967 to furnish any false information or to suppress any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or any other travel document.
5. The above information given by me in this undertaking and enclosures is true and I am solely responsible for its accuracy.
(Signature of the Passport applicant) Name..........................................?
Mobile No.................................?
Date:.................
Place:...............
***
10. After considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as after perusal of record, this Court finds that Under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the citizens of the country are entitled for passport. In Maneka Gandhi (Supra), the Apex Court has held that having passport is a fundamental right of the citizen of India and a citizen can not be deprived of such fundamental right.
11. This Court further observes that for issuance of passport a declaration has to be made by the applicant that the applicant has not been convicted by any Court of Law in India for any criminal offence and has not been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more than two years with other relevant information.
12. A careful reading of provisions of the Passport Act and the Notification dated 25.08.1993 alongwith the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it's legislative backgrounds as mentioned above, it is clear that passport or travel document of a person, who is facing trial can be refused by the authority concerned during pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar for giving no objection by the court concerned. No hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport. It is always discretion of the court concerned and depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, act and conduct of the accused as well as nature of alleged offence committed by him and stage of trial, etc. Some time on account of enmity or ill will one party enmesh the other party in a frivolous criminal case to settle his personal score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the matter and surrounding circumstances while granting or refusing the no objection for renewal or reissue of passport or travel documents by the court concerned.
13. Thus, this Court after considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra), is of the view that the learned trial court had completely ignored the Notification dated 25.08.1993 as well as Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi (referred above) while passing the impugned order and had rejected the application of the applicant for grant of permission for issuance of passport, thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the learned trial court concerned.
14. In view of above, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Ghazipur, by means of which application for issuance of passport of applicant was rejected, is hereby quashed and the matter is being remanded back to the learned trial court concerned for passing an order afresh in light of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra).
15. Accordingly, the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed with direction to the learned trial court i.e.First Additional Session Judge, Ghazipur, that if the applicant moves a fresh application for grant of permission for issuance of passport within ten days from today, the same may be decided expeditiously i.e. within fifteen days from its filing in view of the above observations.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Aditya