MP High Court Quashes Overstay FIR Against Afghan Student So He Can Return Home

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against an Afghan national who overstayed his student visa, holding that continuing the prosecution would only prolong a stay that neither he nor the Government of India wants.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, sitting at Jabalpur, partly allowed a writ appeal filed by Sayed Rashed Sadat. The bench made it clear that it was not disturbing the Leave India Notice issued to him. But it observed that the pending case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 was the only thing stopping him from going home.

Sadat came to India in December 2019 on a student visa to study at Jagran Lake City University, Bhopal. He completed a Master’s in Journalism in 2022, and his visa was extended until March 2024. No extension was granted after that. He stayed on, citing the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, and was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR in September 2024.

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and a long-term visa was never granted to him. A Leave India Notice asked him to depart by 15 January 2025. When he did not, an FIR was registered at Kolar Road Police Station, Bhopal. A Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on 9 October 2025, calling it a case of intentional overstay.

Before the Division Bench, advocates Sankalp Kochar and Prakahar Shukla, appearing for Sadat, said he no longer wished to remain in India. He had given up his challenge to the notice and was no longer pressing for a long-term visa. The FIR, they argued, was the only obstacle to his return.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, assisted by advocate Sanjay Kumar Malvi, opposed the plea for the Union of India, arguing that Sadat had stayed on “one pretext or the other”. Additional Advocate General B.D. Singh appeared for the State.

Why the Court Closed the Case

The bench noted that it was not disputed that Sadat did not enter India as an “infiltrator or intruder”. He came on a valid visa, completed his education, and did not hide after the visa expired. He remained in constant touch with the authorities throughout.

Relying on Karnataka High Court rulings in Junia Erastus Mayemba (2017) and Tshibambula Jennifer Kabantobelu (2018), and the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Anastasiia Leonskaia (2019), the bench agreed that such cases deserve a humane closure. Though those were Single Bench rulings, the court said it fully agreed with their view.

It then recorded five factors: lawful entry on a student visa, a lawful purpose, no unlawful activity during his stay, no concealment during the overstay, and readiness to leave unconditionally.

Since the “basic charge” was overstay, the court held that “continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would only prolong the over stay”. It called this “a fit case where quietus should be given to the matter”.

The FIR (Crime No. 134/2025) was quashed, but with conditions. Sadat must buy tickets to Afghanistan within 30 days and inform the FRRO and the investigating officer. The FRRO must then issue an exit permit within a further 15 days, with Sadat paying the statutory fees. He must leave India within seven weeks, stay in Bhopal until then, and not seek any extension of his stay “on any ground whatsoever”.

He may not re-enter India except on a valid visa, and visa authorities remain free to consider his overstay while examining any future application. If he fails to leave within seven weeks, the benefit of the order will be withdrawn and the prosecution revived.

The court also directed that a certified copy of the order be issued only along with his affidavit, to be filed by 28 October 2026, confirming his willingness to depart unconditionally. Wherever he submits the order, the certified affidavit must accompany it too.

Case Title: Sayed Rashed Sadat vs. Union of India and Others

Judgment Date: October 27, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain

Tags: