In a significant development in the long-running legal battles involving former Uttar Pradesh MLA Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed his petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings related to allegations of using forged documents to obtain a passport. The decision marks yet another setback for the young Samajwadi Party leader, who has faced multiple court cases over the past several years, many of them linked to alleged discrepancies in his official and personal records.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma declined to interfere with a July 23 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court observed that the trial in the matter was already complete, arguments were underway, and there was therefore no compelling reason for the apex court to intervene at this stage.

The case centres on accusations that Abdullah Azam—son of senior Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan—used forged documents to establish an incorrect date of birth in order to secure an Indian passport. An FIR was registered in Rampur in July 2019, alleging that the educational records of Abdullah Azam showed his date of birth as January 1, 1993, while his passport reflected a different date: September 30, 1990. According to the prosecution, the documents submitted for his passport application were fake and constituted a criminal act under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Passport Act.

Following the FIR, police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet accusing him of offences under sections 420 (cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC, as well as under section 12 of the Passport Act, which penalises the use of false documentation in the process of obtaining or attempting to obtain a passport. The trial court eventually framed charges against him, and proceedings continued despite repeated attempts by his legal team to halt the process at the High Court level.

Abdullah Azam’s legal challenge before the Allahabad High Court rested principally on the argument of double jeopardy—the constitutional protection under Article 20(2) that prevents an individual from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. His counsel contended that he was already facing trial in another case in which he was accused of obtaining a birth certificate using forged documents. Since both cases allegedly involved similar facts, his lawyers argued, the second prosecution should not be allowed to continue.

However, the High Court rejected this contention, holding that the plea was “devoid of merits” and that the similarity of allegations did not automatically imply that the offences were identical. The court noted that the acts complained of—using forged documents to procure a birth certificate and submitting different forged documents to obtain a passport—were distinct offences committed at different points in time and, therefore, could be prosecuted separately. Following this, Abdullah Azam approached the Supreme Court.

On July 29 this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal and issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government while directing that the trial court could continue hearing the case but should not pronounce judgment until further orders. During Thursday’s hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Abdullah Azam and urged the bench to quash the proceedings, arguing that the trial rested on questionable grounds and that the High Court had failed to appreciate the legal principles involved.

Representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj countered these claims by reiterating that the alleged offences were distinct and that forging documents at different times for different purposes amounted to separate violations. He also informed the court that the trial had already concluded and that the case was now at the stage of hearing final arguments.

The Supreme Court bench appeared disinclined to intervene at this juncture. Addressing Sibal, Justice Sundresh observed: “Let the trial court decide it. Have faith in the trial court. Why should we interfere now when the trial is already over?” The bench further remarked that the trial court would be free to adjudicate the matter independently and without being influenced by the High Court’s order or any observations made by superior courts while dealing with interlocutory matters.

In reaffirming the High Court’s stance, the Supreme Court effectively cleared the path for the trial court to deliver its judgment once arguments conclude. The decision signals the judiciary’s broader reluctance to interpose itself midway through trials unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or a violation of procedural norms.

The allegations of forged documentation form part of a wider set of legal troubles for Abdullah Azam Khan and his family. Over the past few years, he has been embroiled in cases related to alleged encroachment, vandalism, rioting, and misuse of government schemes, many of which stemmed from political controversies in Rampur, the family’s traditional stronghold. Some cases led to the cancellation of his membership in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly after courts found discrepancies in his age documents submitted during election nominations.

In this particular case, the prosecution’s argument hinges on the fact that Abdullah Azam’s educational documents record one date of birth, while the passport application uses another. This discrepancy, coupled with allegations of forged signatures and fabricated supporting documents, formed the basis of the FIR and subsequent investigation. The state argues that such acts undermine the integrity of essential identification systems and therefore warrant prosecution under both general criminal law and specialised statutory provisions governing passports.

Given the Supreme Court’s order, the trial court in Rampur will now resume hearing final arguments and proceed to deliver its judgment. The court’s decision will have substantial implications for Abdullah Azam’s political and legal future, especially as he seeks to re-establish himself following multiple disqualifications and convictions.

For now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to quash the case underscores a consistent judicial approach: once a trial has progressed substantially or reached completion, appellate courts generally avoid derailing the process unless grave errors are evident. The bench’s observations emphasised trust in the trial court’s ability to reach a fair and reasoned conclusion, a principle long embedded in the structure of India’s judicial hierarchy.