HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6328 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Suryansh Narula, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varun Kumar Pandey, Special counsel for the Union of India and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.7.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.1171 of 2021 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - II, Raebareli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the criminal case on the basis of concocted facts and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer for the offence under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gurubakshganj, District Raebareli without considering the evidences available to him. He further submits that cognizance has already been taken but the trial is not going on as other co-accused persons are not cooperating in the trial. He also submits that renewal of the passport is necessary for treatment of his wife and for the same, he moved an application before the competent court but the same was rejected vide order dated 15.7.2025 in the most mechanical manner. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it was obligatory on the part of the learned court below to consider the right of the applicant to have passport. He also relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar & Ors. Vs. State of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suryansh Narula, Anupama Bhadauria Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhiraj Prakash Trivedi @Dheeraj Prakash .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) U.P. & Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1458/2024 and submits that impugned order may be set aside and matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration. He further relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Syed Mohammad Seraj Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Application U/S 482 No.4746 of 2025 and submits that it is bounden duty of the court below to consider the right to travel abroad, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India and learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the applicant and submit that charge sheet has already been filed by the applicant after considering the evidences collected by the Investigating Officer and the trial is pending since 2021. They also submit that judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra) has already been re-considered in the case of Smt. Rita Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ C No.6450 of 2024 and the judgment of Rita Verma (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.7481 of 2024, in which, it is held that the office memo issued by the Ministry of External Affairs are binding on the authorities in relation to permission of trial court for issuance/renewal of passport of a person against whom trial is pending. They further submit that document relied by the applicant before the trial court related to the medical prescription of wife, there is no referral of the doctor for further treatment in other place, therefore, learned court below has rightly rejected the application of the applicant and it is always open to the applicant to move appropriate application for expedite disposal of the case, in case, other co-accused are not cooperating in the trial. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application, other relevant documents as well as judgments relies by the counsel for the parties, it is evident that as per the office memorandum issued by the Ministry, it is mandatory that in case, trial is pending before any Court, then necessary approval is required from the court concerned for issuance/renewal of passport. In the present case, application was filed by the applicant before the court concerned for approval on the A482 No. 6328 of 2025 2 basis of two grounds, first, wife of the applicant is suffering from arthritis, therefore, to provide proper treatment, he needs to go to U.S.A. where a close friend of the applicant is residing and second, applicant is also having right to travel abroad but without passport, he cannot do so. In the para 10 of the application, vague avernments have been made that wife of the applicant is suffering from arthritis and may require specialized medical treatment in the U.S.A. but the medical prescription enclosed with paper book does not reveal any referral for treatment. The learned court below has rightly considered the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, according to which, proper reason must be mentioned in the application for renewal of passport, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, present application is dismissed. 7. However, it is open to the applicant to move appropriate application before the trial court to conclude the trial separately. In case, any application is filed by the applicant for separation of trial, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 8. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below, forthwith. October 27, 2025 GauraV/- A482 No. 6328 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench