The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4862 of 2025 Pradeep Pugalia ..... Petitioners 1) State of Odisha 2) M/s. Uma Fire Services Pvt. Ltd. -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC for O.P. No.1 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 02.12.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The present application has been filed at the instance of the Accused-Petitioner under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 thereby challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C. Case No.5092 of 2017. 3. By virtue of the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, the trial court has rejected the application of the Petitioner filed with a prayer for grant of NOC/clearance for renewal of his passport, which had expired on 25.08.2024. 4. The present application has been filed by the Accused- Petitioner for a direction to the trial court to grant NOC to the Page 1 of 8. Petitioner whereby the Petitioner will seek renewal of his passport by the Passport Authority. 5. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Opposite Party No.2 had instituted a complaint case against one Dadheech Infrastructure Private Limited and four others before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was registered as 1CC No.5092 of 2017 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. In the above noted complaint case, the Petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.4 in his capacity as a whole-time Director of R.D.B. Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. The Accused No.1-Company was issued with a work order for supply
Facts
and installation of fire fighting equipment in AIIMS Housing Project, Bhubaneswar. The total cost of the work was Rs.51,25,900/-. The Complainant had applied for the said work and he has been issued with a work order vide letter dated 10.04.2013 by the Accused No.1-Company. The Complainant completed the work. Accordingly, he was issued with a cheque bearing No.439630 dated 04.07.2017 of Axix Bank, Kolkata worth of Rs.15,00,000/-. Allegedly such cheque was signed by the present Petitioner. The said cheque was presented for payment on 28.08.2017 and consequently got dishonoured with a remark “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the Complainant issued the Pleaders Notice and finally he has filed the present complaint case.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in CRLMC No.4671 of 2023 & I.A. No.3188 of 2023 vide order dated 14.11.2024 and that the trial court has no further intimation with regard to the vacation of the interim order. As such, the trial court has expressed that passing any order at this stage would amount to violation of the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2024. In the later part of the order, the trial court has Page 6 of 8. referred to the letter of the Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata dated 07.04.2025 and has come to a conclusion that since the case is still pending against the accused, the petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. 14. On a careful analysis of the order dated 19.07.2025, this Court observes that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected primarily on two grounds, i.e. (i) there was a stay order staying the further proceeding in the complaint case, (ii) since the complaint case is pending, no NOC/clearance could be issued in favour of the Petitioner. 15. On a careful analysis of the impugned order, this Court observes that grant of NOC/clearance is a part of the administrative function of the trial court. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court would not stand in the way of the court. The interim order passed by this Court would be applicable to the judicial proceeding pending in the shape of the complaint case. Secondly, the observation by the court below that due to the pendency of the criminal case, no NOC/clearance could be granted, is a complete misinterpretation of the statutory provisions as well as the O.M. issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has committed a gross error in rejecting the application of the Petitioner on the grounds indicated in order dated 19.07.2025. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 is held to be unsustainable in law. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. Page 7 of 8. Further, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to issue NOC/Clearance Certificate as is required in terms of the O.M. dated 10.10.2019 at Annexure-8 within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner for issuance of passport for a limited period not exceeding one year. 17. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
Arguments
6. Heard Mr. L.K. Moharana, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed Page 2 of 8. thereto. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner is in no way involved in the alleged crime and that he has been unnecessary dragged into the litigation. He further submitted that the Petitioner has also challenged the order taking cognizance in CRLMC No.4671 of 2023 on the ground that no case under the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the present Petitioner on a plain reading of the compliant case. By virtue of the order dated 14.11.2024, the said matter has been referred to the District Mediation Centre, Bhubaneswar and, as an interim measure, the further proceeding in ICC Case No.5092 of 2017 has been stayed till the next date of hearing. 8. While matter stood thus, the passport of the Petitioner bearing No.M1330123had expired on 25.08.2024. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for renewal of passport on 09.10.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the Petitioner appeared before the Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata on 24.12.2024 for physical verification of the document. While this was the position, the Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata, vide letter dated 07.04.2025, informed the Petitioner regarding the shortcomings which came to their notice while conducting the physical verification. It has been specifically mentioned that the Petitioner was required to furnish “Proof of Clearance” viz. the criminal proceeding pending in the shape of the above noted complaint case and that the Petitioner was also requested to obtain a Page 3 of 8. NOC/clearance from the concerned court so as to enable the Passport Authority to process the application of the Petitioner for renewal of his passport. In view of the aforesaid development, the Petitioner moved an application before the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubeneswar on 27.05.2025 with a prayer for issuance of NOC/clearance for renewal of passport. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, contended that in view of the provision contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the Passport Authority can very well refuse to issue passport/travel document to the Petitioner in the event the Petitioner has acquired the ineligibility as has been indicated in Section-6 of the Act. As per Section-6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, it is clear that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport/travel document in the event any proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. In view of the aforesaid disqualification contained in Section-6 of the Act, no passport could have been issued to the Petitioner to travel abroad. 10. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs has come up with an Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2019, at Annexure-8, containing instruction for issuance of passports to the applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before a Court of law in India. The said Office Memorandum is applicable to all the cases coming under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The aforesaid Office Page 4 of 8. Memorandum provides a window to the persons who have been made an accused in a criminal case and where the criminal proceeding is pending against such person, to apply for renewal of passport. The above noted Office Memorandum, by referring to GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, provides for grant of passport with the NOC/clearance of the court where the criminal case is pending against the applicant. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner applied for grant of NOC/renewed clearance from the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in connection with the above noted complaint case. The application of the Petitioner dated 27.05.2025 having been rejected by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar vide order dated 19.07.2025 in I.C.C. No.5092 of 2017, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 11. While assailing the above noted impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the above noted I.C.C. Case has been registered implicating the Petitioner as an accused for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that the criminal case which is pending against the Petitioner arises out of a private complaint. It was also contended that the said complaint case has been registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act wherein the trial would involve examination of documentary evidence. Therefore, the personal appearance of the Petitioner in such a case would be minimal. He further submitted that other than the above noted complaint cases, there are no other cases pending against the Page 5 of 8. present Petitioner. Moreover, the nature of the dispute involved in the complaint case is a by-product of a commercial dispute. Therefore, there is no impediment in law to grant NOC/clearance to the Petitioner for renewal of his passport for limited period. 12. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner vide order dated 19.07.2025. He further expressed his apprehension that in the event the Petitioner is issued a passport, there is every possibility that he might remain absent from the country which would eventually cause delay in conclusion of the trial. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the application, this Court observes that the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of NOC/clearance, as required vide O.M. dated 10.10.2019 at Annexure-8, has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the further proceeding in the complaint case has been stayed by
Decision
stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 08-Dec-2025 18:49:49 Page 8 of 8.