The central legal point established is the consideration of an applicant's position and circumstances, along with the legal provisions, in granting a No Objection Certificate for reissuance of passport despite pending criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 28.06.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.631 of 2022 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI cases) at Coimbatore and direct the lower Court to issue No Objection Certificate for re-issuance of passport.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 28.06.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.631 of 2022 by the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in C.C.No.2 of 2013, filed the above Crl.M.P.No.631 of 2022 before the Special Court for CBI cases, Coimbatore, seeking No Objection Certificate for reissuance of passport. The said petition was dismissed and hence, the revision.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition in brief, are as under.

(i) The respondent police had registered a case in RC MEI 2011 E 0013 against named accused persons for alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 347, 348, 506(i) of IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioner was arrayed as A6 and after completion of investigation, Final Report was submitted before the trial Court and the petitioner was arrayed as A1 in the said Final Report and the trial Court took cognizance over the said Final Report and assigned CC No.2 of 2013.

(ii) The case is said to be pending. While so, the petitioner has moved the Crl.M.P.No.631 of 2022, stating that he is presently posted as Inspector General of Police and his son is studying in American University and his daughter had applied to the University College at London for LLM Course and hence, he has applied for return of the passport before the authority as prescribed under Schedule-III of the Passports Act, 1967 as per the earlier order of this Court and hence, No Objection Certificate for the reissuance of passport to the petitioner, is necessary.

(iii) In the earlier round of litigation in WP No.27943 of 2019 dated 04.11.2019, this Court has mentioned that necessary permission has to be taken from the Court for the issuance of the passport. Before the trial Court, the respondent-CBI filed an objection stating that the case is pending without progress for long years and due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the case could not be proceeded further. Accepting the said contention, the trial Court has dismissed the petition and hence, the revision.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the present Criminal Revision, the earlier proceedings taken by the petitioner under various forms and various forums has been detailed. So also in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent police, the various litigations has been enumerated.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by me in Crl.R.C.No.495 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018 [Dhanasekaran Vs. State Rp. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Coimbatore]

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is seen from the counter filed by the CBI that Crime No.3/2010 of EOW-II, Coimbatore pertains to cheating of the general public by K.Mohanraj, Kathiravan and Smt.A.Kamalavalli, all Director of M/s.Paazee Trading Company, Tiruppur. In compliance of the order of this Court, this case was re-registered by CBI as RC.12/E/2011 on 15.06.2011. The accused who were absconding were arrested and charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2011 before the Learned Special Judge for TNPID Cases, Coimbatore, against all the 3 accused and the companies for offences punishable under Sections 120-B of IPC r/w Section 4 of Prize Chit & Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978, 420 IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 on the allegations that the accused persons dishonestly promised huge returns and cheated 52893 depositors/investors to