Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh MLA Abdullah Azam Khan, son of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, seeking quashing of an FIR against him for allegedly using forged documents to obtain a passport.

“We are not inclined to interfere. However, we make it clear that the trial court is at liberty to decide all the issues without being influenced by the order of the High Court”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra upheld the order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the FIR after noting that the trial was over.

Justice Sundresh said, “Have faith in the trial court. Let it be decided in the trial court. Why should we interfere now when trial is already over?”

The case relates to an FIR registered at Civil Lines Police Station in Rampur district, in which Abdullah Azam Khan is facing trial before the Special MP/MLA Judge, Rampur under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

According to the FIR, Abdullah Azam Khan allegedly used forged documents to obtain a passport mentioning his date of birth as September 30, 1990, while his actual date of birth as per his school records is January 01, 1993. Charges in the case were framed on September 09, 2021.

In October, the Supreme Court dismissed a similar plea filed by Abdullah Azam Khan and his father Azam Khan seeking quashing of another case concerning the alleged use of a forged birth certificate to obtain a PAN Card in order to file nomination for Assembly elections.

While dismissing that plea as well, the Court had noted that the trial in that case had concluded. It had directed the trial court to deliver judgment within eight weeks, clarifying that the observations of the High Court would not affect the final decision.

Earlier, in July, the Supreme Court had issued notice and directed that the trial in both the cases can go on but final judgment should not be passed.

The High Court had refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the pleas were not maintainable and that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC did not apply.

The High Court had observed that although the same forged birth certificate was alleged to have been used to obtain both the PAN card and the passport, each act of use constituted a separate offence. It had also noted that the accused had delayed filing their applications and had not raised the plea of double jeopardy earlier despite being aware of the facts.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 11073/2025

Case Title – Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State Of U.P.