Allahabad High Court
AZAM QURAISHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioner must obtain a no‑objection certificate or permission from the court where the criminal case is pending (or the superior court that stayed it) before the passport authorities can grant the passport.
Summary
Petitioner Azam Quraishi sought a passport but his application was held up because he is implicated in a criminal case under several IPC offences and provisions of the SC/ST Act. He relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar, which held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar passport issuance if the petitioner obtains permission from the court where the case is pending. The Court also cited Rahimuddin, which mandates that when a criminal proceeding is stayed, the petitioner must seek permission from the superior court that effected the stay. The judges directed the petitioner to approach the court handling the criminal case (or the superior court that stayed it) for a no‑objection certificate, after which passport authorities must act within two months. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case under the IPC and SC/ST Act can be a ground to deny issuance of a passport.
- Whether the petitioner must obtain a no‑objection certificate or permission from the court where the criminal case is pending (or a superior court that stayed the proceedings) before a passport can be issued.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va)
Subjects
- passport issuance
- criminal case pendency
- no objection certificate
- jurisdiction
- Indian Penal Code
- SC/ST Act
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9383 of 2026
Azam Quraishi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Danish, Saif Ali Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Kant Shukla
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Krishna Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner's application for 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 Case Crime No. 0257 of 2021,
under Sections 147, 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Ramnagar, District-
Kashi (Commissionerate Varanasi) cannot be a ground to deny 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. 9383 of 2026
2
fresh decision in the matter relating to 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
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…