Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12798 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1632 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Afsar Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nafeesh Quraishi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareli, by means of which application for renewal of passport of petitioner was rejected is contained in Annexare No.7 to this petition ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to grant renewal of petitioner's Passport bearing no. LK3067343325413, in the interest of justice. iii. Such other relief, as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted by this Hon'ble Court, protecting the rights and interest of the Petitioner and; iv. To award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the brother of the petitioner was solemnized with one Amina Bano on 05.03.2016, thereafter, due to some matrimonial dispute in between them, FIR No.445/2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of DP Act on 16.11.2021 was lodged by Amina Bano with the general allegations against her husband but the charge sheet was submitted in the aforesaid case by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submits that during the pendency of the trial of the aforesaid case, petitioner and his mother were planning to do Umrah, therefore, application was moved for renewal of passport but the said application was rejected by the trial court with the observation that time period is not mentioned in the application for visiting Umrah. He further submits that the trial court, while rejecting the aforesaid application, has also failed to consider the provisions of office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 4. The provisions of office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. is reproduced as under: "No. VI/401/1/5/2019 Government of India Ministry of External Affairs PSP Division Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg New Delhi, the l0th October 2019 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Issue of passports to applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before a court of law in India. Reference is invited to Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 regarding issuance of passports to applicants who have criminal proceedings pending against them and whose applications would attract the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. 2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is reproduced below for reference: "G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued - (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order; (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed fr one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified. (c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis f a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport-issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued. " 5. Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General Assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and learned AGA jointly submit that vague application was given before the trial court and it has rightly observed that no period has been mentioned in the application. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of petition, office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as well as other relevant documents, as it is evident that application of petitioner has been rejected on the ground that date for vising Umrah is not mentioned in the application. It is also evident that the provisions of office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 were not taken into consideration by the trial court while rejecting the application of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 is hereby set aside with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh application mentioning each and every fact within a period of four weeks from today. 8. In case, any application is moved, the same shall be decided after considering the contents of application as well as provisions of office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench