JUDGMENT M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard Mr. Amonkar for the Petitioner and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. For the order that we propose to make, service on Respondent No.3 is not necessary. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Amonkar, on instructions, prays for the relief in terms of prayer clause (b), which is an alternate relief. Prayer clause (b), reads as follows : "(b) Grant a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.2 to issue the necessary permission/no-objection to the Petitioner to travel abroad;" 5. In this case, the investigating authorities have already filed "A" Summary report before the competent Magistrate. The said report is not yet disposed of for want of effective service upon the original complainant. Be that as it may, the competent Court, by order dtd. 1/12/2021, has already permitted the Petitioner to travel abroad. 6. Paragraph 8 of the learned Magistrate's order dtd. 1/12/2021, reads as follows : "8. In the circumstances, applicant is permitted to travel abroad on the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall abide by the bail conditions imposed on him by order dtd. 12/9/2017 in Bail application no. 120/2017/B, b) Bail bond and surety furnished therein shall continue, c) The applicant shall give an undertaking that he will appear before the Court and the Investigating Office (I.O. in short) as and when required by the Court and the I.O. d) The applicant shall furnish a copy of his passport. e) The applicant shall furnish a photograph for identification. Proceedings closed" 7. The Petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the above conditions. Mr. Amonkar, however, states that when the Petitioner approached the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), he was required to produce an NOC from the Police (Respondent No.2). Mr. Amonkar submits that when the Petitioner approached the Police, he was informed that since "A" Summary report has been filed, it is not for the Police to issue any NOC even though the Police do not want the Petitioner any more. 8. Considering the above circumstances, we think that the Police should, without prejudice to their contentions, issue the Petitioner a formal NOC as required by the FRRO. 8. Considering the above circumstances, we think that the Police should, without prejudice to their contentions, issue the Petitioner a formal NOC as required by the FRRO. The Petitioner cannot be made to run from pillar to post, after having secured the necessary permission from the learned Magistrate vide order dtd. 1/12/2021. 9. Accordingly, we allow this Petition in terms of prayer clause (b) as quoted above. Respondent No.2 to issue the necessary NOC within a week from today. 10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 11. There shall be no order for costs.