JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to issue a passport in favour of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made that the respondent no.3 i.e. the Passport Sewa Kendra, Varanasi may be directed to appropriately take action upon the application which the petitioner had filed for the issuance of his passport.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner on 28.6.2022 had filled-up an online application form for the issuance of a passport and he was given an appointment for appearing before the passport office on 5.8.2022 at 11.30 AM. When the petitioner reached on 5.8.2022 before the passport office, he was informed that there was a police report against the petitioner which stated that there were reports with regard to non-cognizable cases being NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018 and therefore, the passport could not be issued to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner went back to district Azamgarh and filed an application on 11.8.2022 praying that the Court i.e. the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate may call for a report from police station Nijamabad, District Azamgarh with regard to the two NCRs being NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018. The Court on the very same day passed an order directing the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nijamabad to submit a report with regard to the petitioner's application. On 1.9.2022, the Station House Officer submitted a report wherein it was mentioned that there was no order of the Court for investigating into non-cognizable cases which were registered against the petitioner as NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018. Learned counsel states that since the petitioner's application for issuing a passport had already been rejected and there is no appeal provided against the order of rejection, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. When the case was being argued as a fresh case, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), if there was no order of any Magistrate for investigation under section 155(1) Cr.P.C. then no police officer could investigate a non-cognizable case.

5. For convenience, section 155 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced here as under :

"155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases .--(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also argued that normally non-cognizable cases had punishments which were ranging from one year to seven years and he submitted that as per section 468 Cr.P.C., if cognizance of the cases could not be taken after a lapse of limitation, then the reports of the non-cognizable cases were worthless documents. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon section 468 Cr.P.C., the same is being reproduced here as under :

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation .--(1) Except as otherwise pr