Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The legal stance generally supports that complainants or accused persons can file for passport renewal independently of criminal case status, and courts tend to facilitate renewal unless specific legal restrictions apply.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Katti Srinivas Reddy vs Union of India - Telangana"]: Discusses a petitioner filing for passport renewal despite pending criminal proceedings, courts considering applications, and the importance of deposit after renewal.- ["Dr. Medarmetla Manju Bhargavi vs The Union of India - Telangana"]: States that the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.- ["Mahaveer Chand Jain, vs Aktha Sultana, - Telangana"]: Notes that the complainant filed for renewal despite criminal cases, and courts considered the application.- ["Mahaveer Chand Jain, vs Aktha Sultana, - Telangana"]: Similar to above, court considered renewal applications filed by complainants/accused with pending cases.- ["Madhur Devanathan Vijaya vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Madhur Devanathan Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]: Highlight that criminal proceedings or lack of service do not bar the filing of passport renewal applications.- Overall, the legal trend supports that complainants or accused persons in 138 cases can file for passport renewal, and courts generally permit such filings unless specific legal restrictions are invoked.
In the fast-paced world of business transactions, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are commonplace. But what happens when the accused seeks passport renewal amid ongoing proceedings? A common query arises: In 138 cases, can the original complainant file a say or objection on the passport renewal application filed by the accused?
This question touches on the rights of complainants, the role of authorized representatives, and procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. While courts generally permit such actions under specific conditions, understanding the nuances is crucial. Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Section 138 addresses the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or other reasons, treating it as a criminal offence. The payee or holder in due course—the typical complainant—must file a complaint within the prescribed limitation period, often with a demand notice preceding it.
The proceedings are quasi-criminal, emphasizing personal knowledge of the transaction and proper authority. Key to our discussion: Who can initiate, continue, or support these cases, especially in collateral matters like passport renewals? Passport applications by accused persons in such cases often trigger objections from complainants, as courts may consider pending criminal liabilities under passport rules.
Yes, generally, the original complainant (or authorized person) can file or support a complaint/objection related to the accused's passport renewal application, provided they have proper authority and personal knowledge of the transaction. This stems from principles allowing the payee, holder, or their representatives to prosecute under Section 138. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
Courts have clarified that such interventions are permissible if linked to the underlying offence. For instance, in passport renewal contexts, the Regional Passport Officer may seek inputs on pending cases, enabling complainants to highlight risks like absconding. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 992
As held in relevant precedents: The complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the payee or holder in due course, or their authorized representative, including a Power of Attorney holder.A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
A cornerstone principle is that PoA holders must have personal knowledge—not just formal authority. Mere delegation without insight into the cheque transaction invalidates their role. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) and allied cases, courts affirmed: A complaint can be filed by a Power of Attorney holder if they have personal knowledge.A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705 The judgment in MMTC (supra) further supports pursuit by legal representatives when the original is unavailable. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
For passport renewals, this means a PoA holder can submit objections on the complainant's behalf, bolstering the case with evidence of the pending Section 138 liability.
Death or incapacity doesn't end proceedings. Legal heirs or authorized persons can continue prosecution if they have personal knowledge and proper authority.M. Abbas Haji VS T. N. Channakeshava - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1167
In Vishnu Prasad, the court emphasized: The legal heirs or authorized persons can continue or support proceedings initiated by the original complainant, provided they have personal knowledge of the transaction.M. Abbas Haji VS T. N. Channakeshava - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1167 Principles of criminal procedure allow this, ensuring justice isn't thwarted.
This applies to passport objections too—authorized heirs can intervene, producing PoA or succession documents.
Not every representative qualifies:- Personal knowledge is mandatory: The Power of Attorney holder must have personal knowledge of the transaction; mere formal authority is insufficient.A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705- Proper documentation required: Authority must be evidenced via PoA, affidavits, etc. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705- Strangers or unauthorized parties cannot intervene.- Courts may scrutinize delays; for instance, condonation requires affidavits and accused's hearing, even pre-cognizance. The complainant cannot file an application seeking condonation of delay... without affording opportunity to accused.Sanjay Raghuram & Another VS Telengana Investments and Finances Ltd. , - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 830Sanjay Raghuram VS Telengana Investments and Finances Limited, Having Registered Office at Banjara Hills, Andhra Pradesh
Section 138 cases often intersect with procedural hurdles. Presumptions under Sections 118, 139 favor the complainant, rebuttable by the accused on preponderance of probabilities. Failure to rebut leads to conviction, as in cases overturning acquittals for lack of probable defense. PL.Karuppan Chettiar vs R.Kumar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 1476
In appeals, courts mandate deposits under Section 148(1) NI Act (20% of fine/compensation), exercisable as a rule. Issuing a direction under Section 148(1)... is mandatory... Non-exercise... only under very exceptional circumstances.Sreekandan Nair S. , S/o. Sivasankaran Nair VS State of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 104
Passport-related filings appear in contexts like licence renewals, where complainants assert rights pre-trial. Mahaveer Chand Jain, S/o Late Bheemraj Jain vs Mohd.Aslam, S/o Anwar These reinforce complainant standing in ancillary proceedings.
Compromises may reduce sentences, even for non-compoundable offences, but don't negate objection rights. Goswami Hardevgiri Ramgiri VS State of Gujarat - 2016 Supreme(Guj) 1716
Under Section 138 NI Act, the original complainant—or their PoA holder/legal heirs with personal knowledge—may typically file or support objections to the accused's passport renewal, ensuring accountability. This upholds the Act's deterrent purpose while balancing rights.
Key Takeaways:- Authority + personal knowledge = Valid intervention. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705- Deceased complainants' cases continue via qualified representatives. M. Abbas Haji VS T. N. Channakeshava - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1167- Always back claims with documents; avoid procedural pitfalls like unexplained delays.
Stay informed on evolving NI Act jurisprudence. For tailored guidance, engage a legal expert.
of the petitioner vide File No.HY2076147551524 on the ground that pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to process the application of petitioner for renewal of passport vide File No.HY2076147551524 by considering the ... (vi) The petitioner shall deposit the original passport before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District after renewal of the passport. ... Thereafter, petitioner fil....
Where the accused has not been served with summons for taking the case on file, he cannot be heard to say anything in the original proceedings initiated by the complainant. ... 6. ... The complainant cannot file an application seeking condonation of delay of thousand days and submit that the accused has no say in the matter, as he has not been summoned on taking cognizance of the case. ... 17. ... In the ....
Where the accused has not been served with summons for taking the case on file, he cannot be heard to say anything in the original proceedings initiated by the complainant. ... 6. ... The complainant cannot file an application seeking condonation of delay of thousand days and submit that the accused has no say in the matter, as he has not been summoned on taking cognizance of the case. ... 17. ... In the #HL_STAR....
time, the complainant was forced to file the above complaint. ... Since the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint against the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of a href="./.. ... However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, though the accused has alleged that he handed over a blank si....
She thereafter, filed an Application seeking her discharge from the case and another Application seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of passport renewal. However, due to non-availability of the case file, no orders have been passed on either Application. ... Upon approaching the trial Court for a certified copy of the charge sheet, she was informed that original case file was missing from the court records. ... Then, petitioner #HL_STA....
The petitioner/complainant filed complaint against the 1st respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. ... The petitioner is the complainant and the 1st respondent is the accused in C.C.No.62 of 2010 on the file of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. ... It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant that the petitioner/complainant #HL_ST....
The petitioner/complainant filed complaint against the 1st respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. ... It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant that the petitioner/complainant filed application for renewal before expiry of the licence period and on the date of commencement of trial, the petitioner/complainant did not receive #HL_STAR....
accused has submitted that even though in the year 2005 as per the say of the complainant ... complainant gave Rs.4 Lakhs to the Respondent/ original accused as hand loan nor the applicant/ original complainant has maintained the Applicant/ original complainant and Mr. ... D.P.Palodkar, appearing for the Respondent/sole-original accused.
Respondent/Complainant O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner– Accused No.1 seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 1, wherein it was observed that: “4.13 The respondents examined the application in the light of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, the notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act (hereinafter ‘GSR 570(E)’) and the OM dated
, Pudukottai to consider the petitioner's bail application on the same day of his surrender in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of the Nagudi ... Cases, Pudukottai, to consider the petitioner's bail application on the same day of his surrender in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of the second span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT,serif;font-size
11. Issuing a direction under Section 148(1) of the Act to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine amount or compensation amount is mandatory. Exercise of the power under Section 148(1) of the Act by the appellate court is the rule. Non-exercise of the power under Section 148(1) of the Act can only be under very exceptional circumstances (See Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi: AIR 2019 SC 2956). Such an order can be passed by the appellate court on an application filed by the original complainant or on the application filed by the appellant/accused under Section 389 Cr.P.C to s....
There may be cases where the permit holder cannot be said to be aggrieved, nor he can be said to have any right to move the application. But, then the cases under which the permit holder can file application or cannot file an application, cannot be enumerated, nor it is necessary for us to enumerate circumstances under which application can be filed or application cannot be filed. It depends on the facts of each case, which has to be examined at the wisdom of the Appellate Tribunal and we leave the matter there.
Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2005 is filed by the original accused against their conviction while Criminal Revision Application No. 568 of 2005 is filed by the original complainant for enhancement of sentence imposed on original accused. Accused were given benefit of set off for the period undergone in jail.
According to the appellant, she had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,66,000/- to the respondent no. 2. The appellant is the original complainant, who had filed two separate complaint cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) against the respondent/ original accused.
It depends on the facts of each case, which has to be examined at the wisdom of the Appellate Tribunal and we leave the matter there. There may be cases where the permit holder cannot be said to be aggrieved, nor he can be said to have any right to move the application. But, then the cases under which the permit holder can file application or cannot file an application, cannot be enumerated, nor it is necessary for us to enumerate circumstances under which application can be filed or application cannot be filed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
