The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that a Magistrate before whom a criminal case is pending after cognizance is the competent authority to decide an application for a passport ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC). The Court held this applies even if the offences alleged in the charge-sheet are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, but the case has not yet been committed.
Justice Rajeev Singh, in an order dated October 14, 2025, set aside an order by a Lucknow Magistrate that had rejected an applicant’s plea for a passport NOC on technical grounds.
Background of the Case
The judgment was passed in an Application U/S 482 No. 8668 of 2025, filed by Smt. Neha Arora. The applicant challenged an order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC-50, Lucknow. The lower court’s order had rejected her application seeking an NOC for the renewal of her passport in Case No. 54683/2024.
The underlying criminal case against the applicant includes charges under Sections 323, 328, 376, 384, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The judgment notes that cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate, but the case had not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions, despite containing an offence (Section 376 IPC) triable by a Sessions Judge.
The applicant had moved the application for the passport NOC stating that her daughter is studying in the U.K.
Arguments of the Parties
The core legal dispute, as identified by the High Court, was: “…in case the offence alleged in the charge-sheet are triable by Sessions but the case is pending after taking congnizance before the Magistrate then whether Magistarte is empowered to decide the application for grant of permission for issuance of passport…”
Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the lower court had rejected the application “without considering the office memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 10.10.2019” and a revised memo dated 06.12.2024.
It was argued that these memoranda from the Ministry of External Affairs “clearly states that permission is necessary from the Court concerned where the case is pending.” The counsel contended that since the case is presently pending before the Magistrate, “it was obligatory on the part of Court below to decide the application on merit not on the technical ground.”
The applicant’s counsel also relied on the Supreme Court case of Rajender Kumar Jail Vs. State (1980 3 SCC 435). It was submitted that in the cited case, which involved an application for withdrawal of prosecution (S. 321 Cr.P.C.) in a sessions-triable case pending before a Magistrate, the Supreme Court resolved the controversy “with the observation that power lies with the Court where the case is pending for taking proper decision”. The applicant argued this analogy was applicable to the present case.
The learned AGA (Additional Government Advocate) and the counsel for the complainant reportedly did “not dispute the legal provisions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.” They only submitted that “the case is not being committed to the Court of sessions by learned Magistrate.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Singh, after considering the submissions, records, and the judgment cited, agreed with the applicant’s legal position.
The High Court observed, “as this controversy has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Kumar Jain (Supra) where the learned Magistrate is the competent Court if the case is pending before him after taking cognizance even the offence is triable by learned Sessions Court…”
The Court further noted that “the office memorandum as mentioned by the counsel for the applicant also speaks that learned Court where the case is pending is competent to issue no objection certificate.”
Concluding that the lower court’s order was flawed, the High Court held: “In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law.”
The High Court passed the following orders:
- The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 was “set-aside.”
- Liberty was granted to the “competent Court” (the Magistrate) to pass a fresh order on the applicant’s NOC application “within a period of three weeks.”
- The learned court below was also “directed to ensure the committal of case in question.”
