2022 (7) TMI 815 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Request of passport particulars in connection with the investigation into the affairs of M/s. Vasan Health Care Private Limited under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 - criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending against the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is not expressing any opinion as regard the merits of the contention of the petitioner, as the learned senior panel counsel for the respondent would submit that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if he is directed to submit an explanation to the impugned communication received from the respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court by giving reasons as to why the requirement for getting permission from the concerned Criminal Court with regard to the pendency of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not required. No prejudice will also be caused to the respondent if the petitioner's explanation is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including, granting him the right of personal hearing. This Court directs the petitioner to submit an explanation to the impugned communication dated 23.02.2022, giving his reasons as to why the requirement for obtaining permission from the concerned Criminal Court for renewal of his passport where a prosecution has been lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not required, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said explanation, the respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned order calling for explanation on pending cases - Serious Fraud Investigation Office case and criminal complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges an order requiring the petitioner to provide an explanation on two pending cases. Firstly, regarding the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) case, it is noted that no charge sheet has been filed, and no court has taken cognizance as per the SFIO's communication. Secondly, the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before the Fast Track Court. The respondent's counsel confirms the ongoing nature of this complaint related to dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner.

The petitioner's counsel relies on a Division Bench decision from 2019 concerning passport renewal in cases involving Section 138 complaints. However, the respondent's counsel argues that this decision is not applicable to the current circumstances. The Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contention at this stage.

The Court determines that directing the petitioner to submit an explanation within a specified timeframe will not cause prejudice. The petitioner is instructed to provide reasons why seeking permission from the Criminal Court for passport renewal, given the pending Section 138 complaint, is unnecessary. The respondent is then required to make a final decision based on the explanation provided, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner, including a personal hearing. The petitioner is allowed to present relevant documents and authorities during the inquiry.

Consequently, the Court orders the petitioner to submit the explanation within one week and expects the respondent to issue a final decision within four weeks thereafter, considering all relevant authorities and arguments presented. The Writ Petition is disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.