Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MUNNAWWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petitioner must obtain a No‑Objection Certificate from the court where the criminal case is pending or from the superior court that has stayed the proceedings before the passport can be re‑issued.

Summary

The petitioner sought re‑issuance of his passport, which was withheld because he is implicated in a criminal FIR (sections 506, 494, 498A IPC) pending in Kushinagar. He relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (2023) that mere pendency of an FIR cannot bar passport issuance if the petitioner obtains court permission. The Court also cited Rahimuddin (2025), holding that when a criminal case is stayed by a higher court, permission for a passport must be sought from that higher court. The bench directed the petitioner to approach the court where the criminal matter is pending, or the superior court that has stayed the proceedings, to obtain a No‑Objection Certificate. Upon receipt of such order, passport authorities are to act within two months. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the pendency of an FIR under sections 506, 494 and 498A IPC is a ground to deny re‑issuance of a passport.
  • Whether the petitioner must obtain permission from the court handling the criminal case before a passport can be re‑issued.
  • Which court has jurisdiction to grant the required No‑Objection Certificate when the criminal case is stayed.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • passport re‑issuance
  • criminal FIR
  • no‑objection certificate
  • court permission
  • Indian Penal Code
  • writ petition
  • jurisdiction
  • stay of proceedings

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 10398 of 2026

Munnawwar
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Kamalesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.,       Prabha    Shanker
                                  Tripathi

Court No. - 2
                 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Prabha Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Petitioner's application for re-issuance of passport apparently has been
kept pending on account of his implication in criminal case. Reliance is
placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ - C No.
41540 of 2023 (Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors.), in
order to contend that mere pendency of FIR No. 0640 of 2023, under
Sections 506, 494, 498A I.P.C., P.S. Hata, District- Kushinagar cannot be
a ground to deny re-issuance of passport to the petitioner, provided
appropriate permission is taken by the petitioner from the Court, where
the case is pending.

3. A learned co-ordinate Bench in Rahimuddin Vs. Union Of India And
Another, Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181505-DB has
unequivocally held that where a criminal case has been stayed by a
superior Court, the permission for issuance of passport, shall be sought
from the superior Court, which stayed the criminal proceedings.

4. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioner to approach the
concerned court where the aforesaid case is pending for grant of no
objection certificate or approach such superior Court, which has stayed
the proceeding before the trial court or has passed the order granting any
interim protection to the petitioner, so that the passport authorities take a
                                                                                           WRIC No. 10398 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    fresh decision in the matter relating to re-issuance of the petitioner's
                                    passport. Petitioner, therefore, is at liberty to approach the concerned
                                    court which shall act in terms of the law laid down in Pawan Kumar
                                    Rajbhar and Rahimuddin (supra) and based upon its decision, the
                                    passport authorities would do the needful by passing appropriate orders
                                    within a further period of two months, thereafter.

                                    5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.



                                                                (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    piyush




Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.