Sayed Rashed Sadat vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
1 WA-193-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 193 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010043302026
SAYED RASHED SADAT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Prakahar Shukla - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar
Malvi - Advocate for the respondent/Union of India.
Shri B.D Singh - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Jain
The present appeal under Section 2(1) of M.P Uchcha Nyayalaya
(Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated
09.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.17150/2025 by the learned Single Judge
whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
02. The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging the
Leave India Notice dated 08.01.2025 issued to the appellant and a further prayer
was made to quash the FIR dated 03.03.2025 arising out of non-compliance of the
said notice, registered at Crime No.134/2025 at Police Station Kolar Road,
District Bhopal Urban, under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
2 WA-193-2026
03. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has submitted that

the challenge made in the writ petition was to the Leave India Notice issued to the
appellant on 08.01.2025 calling upon the appellant to leave India on or before
15.01.2025 which was not complied with by the appellant for various reasons
which will be discussed in detail in this order below. He states that the FIR was
challenged consequent to challenge to the leave India notice. He submits that now
the appellant no longer wishes to reside in India and he wishes to go back to
Afghanistan which is his native country as he apprehends no persecution in view
of changed circumstances in that country. However, on account of pendency of
FIR and the consequential proceedings, despite he now willing to leave India to
his native country, he is unable to leave India for his native country only for
pendency of prosecution against him under Section 14 of the Foreigner Act,
1946. Therefore, so far as challenge to leave India notice is concerned, the same
has rendered infructuous as the appellant is now willing to go back to his native
country i.e Afghanistan and only the pendency of FIR and consequential
proceedings is hampering his return to his native country. He is a foreigner and
the FIR may be quashed so that he may depart for his native country.
04. The aforesaid assertion was taken on record subject to condition that
the appellant files an affidavit before the Registry of this Court by tomorrow
expressing his intention to unconditionally depart to his native country i.e.
Afghanistan so that this Court may consider the aforesaid prayer of the appellant.
The counsel for the appellant has submitted that such an affidavit shall be filed by
tomorrow. Therefore, we proceed to consider this prayer of the appellant.
05. Very briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that the
appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan and he came to India on a student visa in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
3 WA-193-2026
December, 2019 as he was student of Jagran Lake City University, Bhopal. It is

his case that on account of Covid-19 outbreak and travel restrictions, he could not
return back to his native country. Consequently, he secured admission into a full
time Masters of Arts program in Journalism which he completed in the year 2022.
The student visa was granted to the appellant and extended from time to time upto
the year 2024.
06. In the intervening period, the appellant secured a job offer from the
University wherein he was studying i.e Jagran Lake City University Bhopal. The
said job offer has been placed on record by the appellant as Annexure A-6 dated
17.06.2022 wherein an offer has been given to him to join Jagran Lake City
University as Production Executive.
07. The appellant continued to remain in India on the pretext that since
August 2021, there is a change of regime in Afghanistan and in place of the
erstwhile democratically elected Government, now the Taliban-led Government is
in power. Since the Government of the day which is in power in Afghanistan does
not promote journalism, therefore, the appellant being a qualified Journalist
having attained course of journalism in India, apprehends persecution at the hands
of State if he returns back to Afghanistan.
08. The appellant thereafter approached the India office of United Nations
High Commission for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R) and a blue card was issued to him
on 24.03.2023 wherein it was mentioned that the appellant has been registered as
an asylum seeker by the U.N.H.C.R India and his application for refugee status is
under consideration. This was followed by the U.N.H.C.R, India office
recognizing him as refugee and a refugee card was issued to him on 27.09.2024
which is placed on record as Annexure A-14, and the same is valid upto
28.02.2027.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
4 WA-193-2026
09. The appellant got employed for sometime while he was in India in

connection with student visa and the said visa was extended from time to time.
Undisputedly, the visa issued to the appellant was lastly extended upto
24.03.2024, and thereafter there was no further extension of the visa. The passport
of the appellant had expired, but later his passport was renewed upto 20.06.2027.
10. He received prompt from Foreigner Regional Registration Office
(F.R.R.O) asking him to apply for an exit permit but since he was anticipating
grant of a long term visa on the strength of refugee status as recognized by the
U.N.H.C.R, he did not apply for an exit permit but kept on pressing for issuance
of long term visa.
11. The appellant also did not pay the fees for exit permit and it was taken
to be a case of intentionally over staying in the country which was taken to be a
violation of Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and therefore, the Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Int. and Sec.) Bhopal vide letter dated 28.01.2025 issued
a "Leave India Notice" directing him to leave India on or before 15.01.2025.
However, he did not leave India by the stipulated date and hence, an FIR was
registered against him by the Police under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court on 08.05.2025 inter
alia praying therein that the leave India notice be quashed and the consequential
FIR registered against him be also quashed.
12. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition holding that it is
case of intentionally over staying in the country after expiry of visa and after
rejection of application for renewal of visa. In such a case, issuance of leave India
notice cannot be stated to be illegal because no foreign national can press upon
authorities in India to remain in India despite the purpose for which he was
allowed to enter the country gets over. The learned Single Judge also found that it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
5 WA-193-2026
is a case of violation of terms and condition of visa also because he was allowed to

enter India on the strength of a student visa but thereafter he got employment offer
with the Jagran Lake City University in the year 2022 and again reverted back to
be a student by again taking admission in the said University on 12.08.2024 in the
course of Diploma in Events which is 1½ years long course, having tenure from
August, 2024 to January, 2026. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant
anyhow on some pretext or the other, wants to stay in India which is clearly a case
of over stay and cannot be permitted and therefore did not find any fault in the
leave India notice. Consequently the petition was dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant, as already noted by us above, had
argued that now the appellant wishes to go back to his native country i.e
Afghanistan and he no longer wishes to apply for a long term visa, nor wishes to
press for staying in India on the strength of refugee status recognized to him by
the U.N.H.C.R, India office. Therefore, he gives up challenge to leave India
notice and restricting his challenge to the FIR registered against him which is the
only impediment for he leaving to his native country because till the time
prosecution remains pending, he would not be able to leave India for his native
country.
14. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of
India has vehemently argued that it is clearly a case of over stay in India on one
pretext or the other. The appellant entered India as a student in December, 2019
on a short term student visa but on one pretext or the other, he kept on extending
the said visa which was lastly extended upto March, 2024 and thereafter there has
been no extension. It is argued that the appellant entered India on the strength of
student visa and avoided return to his native country. He again took admission in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
6 WA-193-2026
the same University wherein he was earlier a student. Therefore, it is clearly a

case for attempting to stay in India on one pretext or the other which cannot be
permitted.
15. It is further stated that India is a non-signatory to Refugees
Convention, 1951 of the United Nations, or the Protocol thereunder adopted in the
year 1967. Therefore, Government of India is under no obligation to grant long
term visa to a person granted refugee status by U.N.H.C.R. Even otherwise no
cogent grounds have been made out by the appellant seeking asylum in India
because the apprehension of he being persecuted in his native country i.e.
Afghanistan is a mere apprehension having no just and sound basis. He has never
worked as journalist in Afghanistan or in any country, and merely having attained
education in journalism cannot lead to inference that he would be persecuted in
Afghanistan.
16. In rejoinder submissions, the counsel for the appellant stated that since
the appellant is now not intending to continue to reside in India nor he is pressing
on his application for long term visa as refugee, therefore all these grounds are
now academic in nature and need not be gone into by this Court and now only the
question is to give quietus to the matter and enable the appellant to go back to his
native country. It is further informed that the appellant has not been engaged in
any criminal activity in India and he has remained a peaceful civilian in India
since the year 2019 when he has been staying in India. He did not enter as an
infiltrator or intruder, but entered on the strength of a valid visa and it is only a
case of overstaying, that too, without concealing himself in the meantime, but was
in continuous touch with authorities seeking extension of visa.
17. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
7 WA-193-2026
18. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not entered India as an

infiltrator or intruder, nor by any unlawful means by resorting to travel to an
intermediary country from which there is visa free travel to India. He entered
India on the strength of a valid student visa. He duly took admission in
educational course in India and completed the education which is not in dispute.
His visa has been lawfully extended from time to time upto March 2024 which is
also not in dispute and thereafter he applied for extension of visa which was
turned down which is also not in dispute. He did not conceal himself after validity
of visa was over, but remained in constant touch with authorities. It is case of
overstaying in India by a person who wished not to return to his native country i.e
Afghanistan on account of change of political situation in the said country in
August 2021, precipitated by fall of elected Government and restoration of
Taliban Government in the said country. Since, the appellant now wishes to go
back to his native country i.e Afghanistan, therefore we need not advert to the
grounds raised by him as to whether he has a valid and reasonable apprehension of
facing persecution at the hands of the State authorities in Afghanistan because as
per his own version, now the situation is conducive for him to return to his native
country i.e Afghanistan.
19. The question that remains before this Court is that whether the
appellant who is a foreign citizen and entered India lawfully but overstayed in
India while seeking long term visa on the strength of his refugee status granted to
him by U.N.H.C.R and now he wishes to go back to his native country without
having indulged in any anti-social or criminal activity in India, the quietus can be
given to the entire matter and the FIR be quashed so as to enable him to go back
to his native country.
20. As per Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 14 lays down penalties for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
8 WA-193-2026
contravention of provisions of the Act and as per Section 14 (a), a person

overstaying in India for a period exceeding the period for which the visa was
issued to him is a punishable offence. By invoking the aforesaid provision, the
impugned FIR has been registered against him. The facts which are prevailing in
the case show that the appellant lawfully entered India as a student and over stayed
and moved an application for long term visa as refugee status was granted to him
by U.N.H.C.R. Long term visa was not granted to him by the Indian Government,
as the authorities here are not bound by grant of refugee status in view of the 1951
convention and 1967 protocol not being binding on India, it not being signatory
to the convention and protocol.
21. The appellant is not being allowed to leave India only because
criminal prosecution under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 is pending against
him. It has been urged before this Court that the appellant is a young man about
28 years of age and he having completed education in India may be allowed to
leave India by giving quietus to the matter as otherwise he has not done any
unwanted activity in India. He remained as a responsible civilian in India and
completed his education here. Only the pendency of FIR under Section 14 of
Foreigner Act is becoming impediment to his exit from India. He is being retained
in India only to face the prosecution, and may be, to serve out the sentence in case
he is convicted.
22. Nearly identical situation was considered by the Karnataka High
Court in the case of Mr. Junia Erastus Mayemba vs. The Bureau of Immigration &
Ors. passed in Criminal Petition No.1305/2017 dated 12.04.2017 wherein a
national of Republic of Uganda entered India on a student visa and over stayed in
India. He was not allowed to leave India only because of pendency of criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
9 WA-193-2026
prosecution against him under the Foreigners Act. The Karnataka High Court

considered the position that if he is made to suffer prosecution and imprisonment
(if any) then his overstay would only be extended further and all such proceedings
against him would necessarily be at the cost of State exchequer. As the petitioner
is now ready to leave the country, it is appropriate that he is sent out of the
country at the earliest. He did not indulge in any criminal activities in India nor
entered India in any unlawful manner. The Karnataka High Court held as under :-
6. Given the above facts and circumstances, the admitted circumstance that the
petitioner has overstayed and this being in violation of the law, if the petitioner
should be penalized and if he should suffer imprisonment, his overstay would only be
extended further. Any such proceedings taken against him would necessarily be at the
cost of the State exchequer. If the petitioner is now ready to leave the country, it is
appropriate if he is sent out of the country at the earliest. Therefore, it would not be
feasible to carry on any further proceedings against the present petitioner as the
justice dispensation system of this country is also over-loaded and we need not add
one more of the kind in the present case and it is in the interest of all, particularly of
the State exchequer to ensure that the present petitioner leaves the country at the
earliest. In this regard, the formalities of procuring an exit permit is necessary. The
petitioner shall be provided an exit permit by the F.R.R.O, who shall issue such an
exit permit without insisting upon the petitioner facing action for violation of rules
and regulations as already alleged and the criminal case pending against the
petitioner should also be dropped provided it is ensured that on issuance of such exit
permit, the petitioner is excorted by the Airport Police till he is subjected to security
check and onward journey to the country as per the ticket which is now procured for
the scheduled Flight No.66F67A leaving at 6.45 hours on 30.04.2017.
23. The Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid case considered that as
justice dispensation system of this Court is already overloaded and the person is
ready to leave India to his native country then FIR should be dropped facilitating
safe return of the foreigner to his country. This will also unnecessarily avoid drain
of State exchequer. The factual situation of the said matter was nearly identical to
the present case.
24. The aforesaid judgment fell for consideration again before the
Karnataka High Court in the case of Tshibambula Jennifer Kabantobelu vs. State
of Karnataka & Ors. (Criminal Petition No.1331/2018) on 03.04.2018 speaking
through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar (as his Lordship then was) wherein the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
10 WA-193-2026
earlier judgment in the case of Junia (supra) was considered with approval by the

Karnataka High Court. In the aforesaid case also the foreigner had entered India
on a student visa. She was a citizen of Republic of Congo, Africa. She did not
appear before the F.R.R.O after expiry of residential permit and overstayed in
India. After considering the case of Junia (supra) with approval, the Karnataka
High Court held as under:-
10. In the light of aforestated facts, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of further proceedings in C.C.No.10682/2017 initiated by Kumbalagudu
Police Station against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 14 of
Foreigners Act, 1946 and Order 7(2) of Foreigners Order, 1948, would not serve any
purpose and in fact, it would be against the tenor of Section 14 itself namely,
permitting a person without residential permit or visa to continue to over-stay in the
territory of India and thereby legalizing her stay in the territory of India. This Court
also cannot lose sight of the fact that FRRO had considered petitioner's application
for grant of exit permit and had granted the same by imposing penalty, which has
also been remitted by petitioner. In that view of the matter, if proceedings are
quashed by putting the petitioner on strict terms, it would meet the ends of justice.
25. Both the aforesaid judgments considered the need to give a quietus to
the matter and when the person did not enter India unlawfully by any unlawful
means and did not indulge in any unlawful activity in India and resided here as a
responsible civilian then in cases of over stay, gave a quietus to the matter by
ordering dropping of criminal proceedings to facilitate return to native country.
The aforesaid judgments of High Court of Karnataka fell for consideration before
the Gujarat High court in the case of Anastasiia Leonskaia v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 2029.
26. The aforesaid case before Gujarat High Court was a case of woman of
Russian nationality who entered India unlawfully by using Nepal as conduit
country from which there is visa-free travel to India. She did not even possess
passport, leave alone visa, while entering India through Nepal. It was found that
her passport had already expired but after she had entered India which was for the
purpose of meeting her boyfriend, she gave birth to a child and now the lady and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
11 WA-193-2026
her child both wanted to leave for Russia. It was a case of person entering not by

lawful means but by unlawful means however, the purpose of visit was not
unlawful but was to meet boyfriend with whom she resided for a long time and
gave birth to a child in India. She also had another child born earlier to the child
born in India. This Court considered the continuation of criminal proceedings as
jeopardizing the lives of two young children apart from the woman and also
considered that continuation of criminal prosecution in such case would ultimately
prove to be adding to the burden of State exchequer and also add to the already
over burdened criminal justice system. It was considered that neither the purpose
of visit was unlawful nor the foreign citizen indulged in any criminal activity or
any unlawful activity in India. Apart from entering India unlawfully, she had a
clean chit during her stay in India. The Gujarat High Court while permitting
quashment of FIR only for the purpose of facilitating return of the foreign national
to her native country held as under:-
37. This Court is of the opinion that permitting the continuation of this litigation
would jeopardize in a major way the lives of two young children also. This Court,
therefore, finds the need to consider this case on humanitarian ground and right of
very young children of parental care. Again, the continuation of this litigation would
ultimately prove to be adding to the burden of exchequer with the her further
overstay in India during litigation would also add to the already overburdened
judicial system, which is not at all desirable nor necessary. More particularly, when
there is not an iota of evidence to show that, at any point of time, she has committed
any illegality. Her only purpose and motive to visit India was to meet her boyfriend,
who is the father of her child, who is a French businessman, as is investigated by the
Crime Branch. This Court is alive to the fact that the petitioner, who is the foreign
national, has no business to break law, while entering this country. Her angle of agent
having defrauded her may also require further scrutiny if eventually the matter would
have gone for adjudication by way of trial. But, this case needs to be treated as a
special case not solely because it is urged by the officers of the Consulate General of
Russia but, essentially, since humanity and human values would reign supreme when
pitted against the strict observance of territorial laws. Continuation of prosecution
against the petitioner would create a serious dent in the norms set out by the
constitution to protect the children's rights. Not only her daughter is without her, but
she is facing serious crisis of being sent to the orphanage, this prosecution would also
deprive her son, one and half year, of his childhood and all possible care and
protection, which at his age is a must. Children of any nationality are privy to
parental care and protection of childhood. These are far weighty reasons for the
mother to be set free when no criminality or ill motive could be investigated in her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
12 WA-193-2026
entry or overstay.

27. Though the above stated judgments of the Karnataka and Gujarat
High Courts are by Single Benches, but we fully agree with the view taken
therein. The present case also, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit
case where a quietus can be given to the matter and the considerations that have
persuaded this Court are as under :-
a. The appellant had not entered India unlawfully but on valid
student visa.
b. The purpose of visit was not unlawful and he duly attained
education in India.
c. He did not indulge in any unlawful activity while he has remained
in India.
d. He did not conceal himself during period of over-stay and was in
constant touch of authorities in India.
e. Now he is ready to depart for his native country unconditionally.
28. The continuation of prosecution of the appellant in this case would
only prolong his stay in India which neither the appellant wants nor the
Government of India wants to take place because the basic charge against him is
of overstay and now continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would
only prolong the over stay which may not be in the interest of justice looking to
the peculiar facts of the case. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that
neither the mode of entry as well as the purpose of entry was unlawful nor any
unlawful activity was indulged during the course of stay. The appellant is now
willing to return back to his native country, hence, it is a fit case where quietus
should be given to the matter and he be permitted to return to his native country
by quashing the FIR under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act wherein the only
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
13 WA-193-2026
charge is of over stay in India.

29. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid attending facts and circumstances
of this case without interfering in the impugned leave India notice nor in the
findings of the learned Single Judge as to the challenge to leave India Notice, this
Court deems it fit to quash the FIR registered at crime No.134/2025 at Police
Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal Urban (Madhya Pradesh), so as to facilitate
return to his native country i.e Afghanistan. Therefore, while quashing the FIR,
the appeal is allowed with the following directions:-
i) The appellant shall purchase return tickets to Afghanistan within a outer
limit of 30 days from the date of this order and inform the concerned authorities of
F.R.R.O/F.R.O as well as the investigating officer.
ii) The appellant shall be issued exit permit by the concerned authority
within a further period of 15 days in a manner that he leaves India by the date for
which he has purchased the tickets. Appellant shall pay the necessary statutory
charges and fees for this purpose.
iii) Appellant shall leave India latest within seven weeks of this order.
iv) The appellant shall remain in city of Bhopal and shall not move out of
city of Bhopal during this period, except when his movement out of Bhopal is
necessary for getting statutory permissions/exit permit etc. He shall inform the
concerned police station Kolar Road, Bhopal while moving out of Bhopal.
v) The appellant shall not seek any extension of his stay in India on any
ground whatsoever.
vi) The appellant shall not enter India in future, except on a valid visa.
vii) The concerned visa issuing authority while considering any application
for issuance of visa to visit India in future, shall always be at liberty to consider
the conduct of the appellant in over-staying in India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86824
14 WA-193-2026
30. Upon failure to leave India by lapse of seven weeks of date of this

order, the benefits under this order shall stand withdrawn and the prosecution of
the appellant shall stand revived.
31. Registry of the Court shall issue a certified copy of this order only
alongwith certified copy of the affidavit of the appellant showing his willingness
to depart from India unconditionally, which is to be filed by 28.10.2026.
Wherever required submit certified copy of this order, he shall submit the same
alongwith certified copy of the affidavit.
32. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE)
(VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
PK

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
7.05.30 PM