2015 (3) TMI 1412 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking the relief against Look Out Circular(LOC) issued - petitioner is now required to go to London in order to save his job but on account of LOC the petitioner was not permitted to leave the country by the Immigration Authorities - HELD THAT - Petitioner has thereafter made a detailed representation dated 19.12.2014 before the Superintendent of Police Guntur pointing out that he has already exceeded his stay in India beyond 180 days which is the maximum permissible period and as such he cannot remain in India and required to return to London as his salary is being with held by his employer and that in view of the fact that the petitioner has no intention to obstruct the hearing of the cases and he has already surrendered before the Court voluntarily requested that the LOC to be taken back. However as no action is being taken the present writ petition is filed. The instructions received earlier by the learned Government Pleader however show that on the basis of opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor the Superintendent of Police declined to take any action on the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of LOC. Since such a reason was not acceptable to this Court the Superintendent of Police was directed to file a counter. In the present case petitioner has already made an appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police as referred to above. However apparently the Superintendent of Police is not inclined to withdraw the said circular - Since no purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police for the purpose of withdrawal of LOC this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition Excise Guntur - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief against Look Out Circular (LOC) issued and continued despite surrender before the Court.
2. Request for withdrawal of LOC to permit travel to London for job purposes.
3. Dispute involving dowry allegations and pending criminal proceedings.
4. Superintendent of Police's refusal to withdraw LOC despite representation.
5. Legal recourse available to challenge LOC issuance and seek withdrawal.

Issue 1: Relief against Look Out Circular (LOC)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief against the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued and continued despite surrender before the Court. The petitioner, a British citizen, got married in India and faced dowry allegations. He surrendered before the Court voluntarily and sought withdrawal of LOC to travel to London for work. The Superintendent of Police's refusal to withdraw LOC led to the writ petition.

Issue 2: Request for withdrawal of LOC
The petitioner requested withdrawal of LOC to travel to London for job purposes, as his salary was being withheld. Despite surrendering before the Court and abiding by its directions, the Immigration Authorities did not permit him to leave the country due to the LOC. The petitioner made representations to the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken, prompting the writ petition seeking relief.

Issue 3: Dispute involving dowry allegations and pending criminal proceedings
Allegations of dowry demand led to criminal proceedings against the petitioner. His wife filed a complaint, resulting in the issuance of the LOC. The petitioner surrendered before the Court voluntarily, obtained bail, and the charge sheet was filed. The petitioner's need to travel to London for work conflicted with the LOC restrictions, leading to the legal challenge.

Issue 4: Superintendent of Police's refusal to withdraw LOC
The Superintendent of Police declined to withdraw the LOC based on the Assistant Public Prosecutor's opinion. This decision was challenged in the writ petition, as the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, surrendered before the Court, and sought withdrawal of the LOC due to job-related reasons.

Issue 5: Legal recourse available to challenge LOC issuance and seek withdrawal
The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Court where the criminal case was pending to seek withdrawal of the LOC. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that the Special Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to consider the withdrawal of the LOC. The petitioner was permitted to make an application before the Court for the withdrawal of the LOC, providing reasons for the request, and the Court would decide on the matter expeditiously.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the Court's decision regarding the relief sought against the Look Out Circular and the petitioner's right to challenge its continuation.