HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 1 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Order on condonation of delay in filing the review application [C.M. Application no.1 of 2025] Office has reported a delay of 660 days in filing this review application. In view of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Delay in filing the review application is condoned. The review petition is treated to have been filedd in time. Application is allowed. Order on review application Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Prayer has been made to review the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by one of us sitting with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Johri in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No.2895 of 2023 [Nadeem Irfan vs. State of U.P.& Others]. Matter has been assigned to this Bench by an order passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 20.01.2025. We have heard the learned counsel for the review applicant who has failed to point out apparent error on the face of record. It is also evident from a perusal of the review application that the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Raghave Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Nadeem Irfan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Diary No. 23043/2023 challenging our order dated 17.4.2023 and the Supreme Court on 11.8.2023 has condoned the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition by observing that they were not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out that the observation made by this Court in the penultimate para of the judgment and order dated 17.4.2023 might not apply to the Passport At. We have gone through the order dated 17.4.2023 and we have observed that if any person is aggrieved by any criminal action of any accused, sufficient remedy is provided under Section 154, 156, 200 of the CrPC. Therefore, this Court refused to issue any Mandamus to the respondents to treat IGRS complaint automatically as FIR. With regard to the second prayer made in the writ petition, the Court had observed that the appropriate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court concerned under section 156 (3) of the CrPC, if his FIR is not being registered at the police station concerned. We find that the petitioner has attempted for a rehearing of the matter and has prayed that his complaint be considered by the Regional passport Officer. We find no good ground to entertain this review application. It is rejected. September 16, 2025 mks CRRAD No. 1 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench