IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 30.01.2026 KARAN ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Devansh Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate Senior Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3-UOI.

Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.4.

*****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( ORAL )

1. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been issued a Police Clearance Certificate due to pendency of a criminal case against him.

2. Counsel submits that petitioner has a valid passport, Annexure P-3, which is expiring on 13.06.2026. He states that petitioner’s wife is working in New Zealand and that he wants to apply for a work visa to be with her. When he applied for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC), in furtherance of a visa programme, it was denied as petitioner was named as an accused in two criminal cases registered against him, as is apparent from status report dated

14.02.2025, Annexure P-5. Counsel states that both the criminal cases were registered against petitioner on the allegation of violation of the prohibitory orders passed during COVID. He states that insofar FIR No.56 dated 13.04.2020, lodged under Section 188 of IPC is concerned, petitioner was convicted and was ordered to be released on probation on furnishing of personal probation bond to the extent of Rs.10,000/- for a period of six months vide judgment dated 11.01.2021, Annexure P-6. He points out that insofar as the second case, that is, FIR No.133 dated 27.07.2020, which has been lodged for offences under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, as well as for various offences under the IPC is concerned, trial is ongoing. Counsel states that the allegation against petitioner is that he was consuming liquor in a hotel during the pandemic and petitioner has been released on bail by the Magistrate. Counsel asserts that petitioner’s involvement in criminal cases cannot be an obstacle in issuance of PCC.

3. Upon notice, petition has been contested by respondent No.4 by filing a reply, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner confessed to the offence in FIR No.56 dated 13.04.2020. He did not opt for a trial. He was convicted by the trial Court and was released on probation. Insofar as the second criminal case is concerned, it has been stated that petitioner along with seven other persons have been arraigned as an accused for violating the orders passed by the District Magistrate. Upon completion of the investigation, challan has been presented and the proceedings are pending for prosecution evidence. State counsel has contended that the petitioner’s presence is required in the second criminal case. A contention has been raised that petitioner does not enjoy clean antecedents and the clearance certificate cannot be issued.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents placed on record.

5. In Amandeep Singh Bedi V/s. Union of India and another, 2024 SCC Online Del 7039, while dealing with a similar issue, Delhi High Court has been observed as under:-

“9. The Court has carefully considered the circumstances of this case. Issuance of a PCC is a miscellaneous service, as defined in Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Passport Rules, 1980, issued by the Passport authorities to confirm the absence of criminal antecedents, primarily for the purpose of long-term visa and immigration requests. The requirement for such PCC stems from the Visa requirements of the country where the applicant intends to travel. Thus, even though the PCC is not strictly governed by the Passport Act, 1967, or the Passport Rules, 1980, it finds mention as a miscellaneous service to assist Indian nationals who are required to comply with specific requirements of the immigration authorities of foreign countries. The purpose of the PCC is that it indicates that the applicant doe