cases pending against him. Only after the passport was seized, he came to know about the cases registered by the 2nd Respondent and at the time of making application for the passport, he was not aware of the pendency of the cases against him and that the Division Bench of this Court, in WA(MD)No.301 of 2019, by order dated, 27.3.2018, has stated that unless cognizance is taken by a concerned Magistrate with regard to a First Information Report, it will not amount to pendency of the criminal case and thereby pending of an First Information Report cannot be construed as pendency of a criminal case. He would further submit that this Court, in WP(MD)No.7056 of 2017, by order dated, 21.4.2017, has held that when an application for quashing is filed and pending before this Court, this Court is the concerned Court, as per the notification of the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.8.1993 in GSR.No.570E and this Court can pass orders for return of his passport. He would further submit that the cases against the Petitioner are pending from the year 2014 and due to seizure/ impounding of the passport, the Petitioner is unable to go abroad for seeking employment and that the Petitioner is prepared to furnish necessary undertaking that he will appear before the Court or the concerned authorities as and when required by them and the Petitioner is also prepared to give the details of his employment and stay at abroad. He would also reiterate that the Petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court as and when required.
