Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 181 (RAJ)

Sazid Khan v. Union of India

2025-02-03

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
Order 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents authority may be directed to issue direction(s)/order(s) at Embassy Damam/Riyadh (Saudi Arab) to renew the passport of petitioners’ brother/husband Mohammad Rafik for the period as may be specified by this Hon’ble Court, so that after obtaining leave (if any), Mohammad Rafik could return Damam (Soudi Arab); b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu may be directed to decide the criminal case pending against petitioners’ brother/husband Mohammad Rafik after his surrender expeditiously; c) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners. d) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he initially obtained the passport and he is now staying in Damam (Soudi Arab) and his passport was renewed/reissued from 12.01.2023 and the said passport was supposed to expire on 11.01.2023 and before the passport has been lapsed, the petitioner has made an application for re-issuance of the same. 3. The passport authority has not passed any order either rejecting or accepting the prayer for renewal/re-issuance. On verification, the petitioner came to know that on account of some adverse police report, his application could not be considered. 4. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that initially, the FIR No.43/1992 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and subsequently, the police has conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet, but the said charge-sheet was not accepted and the same was returned for want of certain procedural compliance. 5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no criminal case pending before any competent Court against the petitioner. According to him, only investigation is pending by virtue of issuance of FIR registered against the petitioner. Therefore, he is not required to comply any of the Rule which requires production of “No Objection Certificate” from the competent Court. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that as per the circular/notification dated 25.08.1993, the rigors of Section 6(2)(f) has been relaxed by the notification by requiring concerned passport holder to produce NOC from the competent Court in which the criminal proceedings are pending. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that as per the circular/notification dated 25.08.1993, the rigors of Section 6(2)(f) has been relaxed by the notification by requiring concerned passport holder to produce NOC from the competent Court in which the criminal proceedings are pending. According to him the police verification report received by the passport authority contained the information relating to lodging of FIR and that FIR is still not closed. Though, the charge-sheet must have been returned, that does not mean that the criminal proceedings are closed. It is also his submission that there is no challenge to the notification/ circular regarding the condition requiring the concerned passport holder to produce the NOC from the competent Court, where the criminal case is pending. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, unless NOC is produced from the competent Court, the passport authority cannot consider his request for renewal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that the FIR is pending before the competent Court. Though, the charge-sheet was initially filed which was returned for want of certain procedural compliance that does not mean that the criminal proceedings are pending and have been closed. 8. In the present case Rules were not challenged and when the Rule mandates the requirement of certain procedure, the petitioner who filed the application for re-issuance cannot ignore such rule and it insist for re-issuance of his passport. 9. In light of the requirement of Rules and notification, the petitioner is required to comply with the requirement of the Rules. The Rules require production of NOC from the competent Court, where the criminal proceedings are pending. 10. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings are pending, therefore, the petitioner is given a liberty to make appropriate application before the competent Court, where the criminal proceedings are pending. To obtain necessary NOC and if such NOC is obtained, he has to submit the same before the passport authority for the issuance of passport. 11. If such NOC is produced before the competent Court, where the application is pending, such authority is required to consider his application for re-issuance of the passport in accordance with the rules. 12. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.