The central legal point established is that passport renewal in the presence of pending criminal cases is subject to specific provisions of the Passports Act and the interpretation of the term 'concerned Court'.

1. The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.7185 of 2017 (Old C.C.No.1850 of 2012) before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB Cases, Egmore for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. This prosecution has been initiated on the complaint lodged by Raghav Reddy (third respondent). Ashok Giri (the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.8618 of 2018) is the holder of Indian Passport bearing No.G6271282, which expired on 27.11.2017 and Rekha Ashok (the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.8619 of 2018) is the holder of Indian Passport bearing No. F2894191, which expired on 24.04.2015. Both of them submitted applications for renewal of their passports and in their passport applications, they disclosed the pendency of C.C.No.7185 of 2017 (Old C.C.No.1850 of 2012). Therefore, the Regional Passport Officer, sent individual communications to both of them advising them to obtain permission/No Objection Certificate from the competent Court. Therefore, Ashok Giri filed Crl.M.P.No.1021 of 2018 and Rekha Ashok filed Crl.M.P.No.1020 of 2018 before the trial Court, in which they have made a very bizarre prayer. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned orders dated 13.03.2018, has dismissed the two petitions, aggrieved by which, they are before this Court.

2. Heard Mr. N.L. Rajah and Mr. S.Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel on record for the petitioners, Mrs. Kritika Kamal.P., learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1, Mr. J.Madana Gopal Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for R2 and Mr. K. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for R3.

3. The law with regard to grant of permission for renewal of passport has been fairly settled by this Court in N.Chandrababu vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, Trichy [2017(3) CTC 493] and also in an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.Jaihar William and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, dated 27.06.2014 in W.P.(MD)Nos.8343 to 8350 of 2014. Therefore, it may not be necessary to recapitulate the legal propositions. Suffice it to say that when a criminal case is pending before a Court, passport can be issued or renewed only on the basis of the No Objection from the criminal Court under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act r/w Section 22 of the Passports Act r/w the Notification No. G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993. In this case, Ashok Giri and Rekha Ashok have filed Crl.O.P.No.15780 of 2014 for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.1850 of 2012 and this Court, by order dated 05.03.2015, has dispensed with their personal appearance before the trial Court and has ordered notice to the respondents therein. In such view of the matter, the expression "concerned Court" in the notification dated 25.08.1993 will be this Court and not the trial Court, since this Court is seized of the quash proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.15780 of 2014.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that apart from C.C.No.7185 of 2017 (Old C.C.No.1850 of 2012), Ashok Giri is an accused in Maduranthagam Police Station Cr.Nos.966 and 967 of 2011 and E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.1994 of 2012. Therefore, he submitted that Ashok Giri ought to have disclosed the pendency of these criminal cases also in his passport renewal application.

5. Per contra, Mr. N.L. Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for Ashok Giri submitted that the pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal case within the meaning of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. In support of this submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in W.Jaihar William (supra). The proceedings in a criminal case in the context of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, is said to begin only in terms of Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Admittedly, cognizance of the offence has not been taken by the competent courts in respect of the three FIRs referred