HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35846 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Sri Piyush Mishra, learned Advocate has put in appearance as panel counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing 'vakalatnama' is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Mishra, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of his pending application for renewal of passport by respondent no. 2. 4. It is contended that the application of the petitioner has remained pending consideration only for the reason that a non-cognizable report no. 37 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Madanpur, District- Deoria has been registered against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar vs. Union of India & 2 Others (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:9963-DB), is applicable in the case of petitioner. He submits that paragraph 21 of the judgement provides that in the matter where only non-cognizable report is registered, issuance, renewal or reissue of a passport cannot be withheld. 6. Learned panel counsel appearing for concerned respondents does not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : V.K. Baranwal, Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C. Mani Kanaujiya .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) dispute the aforesaid legal position and submits that the concerned respondent no. 2 may be directed to dispose of the pending application for renewal of passport of the petitioner expeditiously. 7. We have considered the submission and have also perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra), in which vide para nos. 21 to 24, the Court has held below:- "21. Therefore, we are inclined to read the word 'proceeding' used in Sections 6 (2) (f) and 10 (3) (e) of the Act to allow minimum scrutiny/application of mind by the jurisdictional Criminal Court under whose territorial jurisdiction a criminal investigation or enquiry or trial may be pending, as may be the case. Thus, where an offence may be pending investigation at a Police Station, the Court/Judicial Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over that Police Station may grant permission to a person accused of that criminal offence, to travel abroad. Insofar as NCR are concerned, learned A.S.G.I. has categorically and most fairly stated, there is no reason to withhold issuance, renewal or reissue of a passport. The Regional Passport Authority do not and in any case they shall not withhold issuance, renewal or re-issuance of individual passports against report of NCR against any citizen applicant. 22. Primarily, that Criminal Court would have to be satisfied if the desired permission may be granted to an applicant citizen and the terms and conditions on which such permission may be granted and the period for which such travel permission may be granted. Such discretion when exercised judiciously would temper with reason, the uninhibited administrative discretion that may otherwise be claimed, in such matters. Perhaps, it is the lethargy or doubt in exercise of such administrative discretion that leads to the continuous flow of such petitions to this Court. 23. Also, unless the above expansive interpretation is given to the phrase "proceedings in respect of an offence" and the other phrase "pending before a criminal court" used in Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Act, an incongruent situation may arise where permission to travel abroad may come to be granted to an accused in a heinous offence solely for reason of a narrow construction given to the word 'proceeding'. The investigation, the eventual trial and therefore the goal of speedy justice WRIC No. 35846 of 2025 2 would stand inadvertently prejudiced and compromised, though the same may remain the cherished goal of state policy, on paper. 24. On the other hand allowing such competent Court to apply its mind to the permission sought to travel abroad, does not cause any injury to the applicant. It only enables the trial Court to fix its calendar efficiently. In matters where pre-trial criminal investigation or inquiry may be pending, it would allow the competent Court to test the impact of the travel proposed (by the accused) on the pending criminal investigation etc. It would also allow the competent Court to see if such accused person has cooperated in the criminal investigation and/or if his presence would be imperative during the period of travel proposed." 8. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent no. 2, namely, Regional Passport Officer, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport despite the fact that NCR no. 37 of 2021 has been registered against him. We make it clear that petitioner's application for renewal of passport shall be duly processed and finalized within next two months of presentation of certified copy of this order provided there is no other legal impediment. October 14, 2025 #Vikram/- WRIC No. 35846 of 2025 3 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad