Madras High Court
Prajeesh vs The Superintendent Of Police ... on 27 October, 2021
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
Prajeesh ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police (Rural),
State Bank Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perur,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Immigration Officer,
Office of the Foreigners Regional Registration,
Bureau of Immigration,
Airlings Buildings, CIAL, Nedumbassery,
Cochin Airport PO, Kochi-638 111,
Kerala. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to withdraw the
Lookout Notice issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.3
of 2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police and consequently direct the
3rd respondent to lift the travel restriction imposed in pursuant to the above
said Lookout Notice.
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr.J.Madhanagopal,
Senior Panel Counsel
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to
withdraw the Lookout Notice issued against the petitioner in connection
with Crime No.3 of 2021 on the file of the 2 nd respondent Police and
consequently direct the 3rd respondent to lift the travel restriction imposed in
pursuant to the above said Lookout Notice.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the Vice President in M/s.Vita International (Insurance
Brokers) Limited, L.L.C at 1702, A1 Mussalla Tower Bank Road, Dubai,
UAE. The petitioner was residing with his wife and children in Dubai from
the year 2011. The petitioner's brother one Pratheesh Raj got married to one
Archana Raj. After the marriage, there was some matrimonial dispute
between them. Hence, Archana Raj lodged a complaint against her
husband/A1, the petitioner/A2 and the petitioner's mother/A3 and a case in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
Crime No.3 of 2021 was registered, for offence under Sections 498A, 406,
506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 19.03.2021,
the petitioner returned to India to meet his mother. When he landed in
Cochin Airport to shock and surprise, the Central Investigative Security
Force arrested him owing to the Lookout Notice issued by the 3rd
respondent, since FIR was pending against him. The petitioner was handed
over to Cochin Airport Police, who handed over the petitioner to the 2nd
respondent Police and consequently, he was arrested by the 2 nd respondent
Police on the same day and produced for remand.
3.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed a
bail petition in C.M.P.No.1403 of 2021 before the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge, by order,
dated 31.03.2021 granted interim bail with conditions that the petitioner
should not leave India without getting permission of the Court and appear
before the 2nd respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. The petitioner complied
with the conditions imposed and the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore accepted the surrender and made the interim bail
absolute and thereafter, the petitioner executed sureties and he was released
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
on bail. The petitioner filed a modification petition in C.M.P.No.1858 of
2021 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
to modify the condition imposed regarding permission to travel back to
Dubai where his wife and children are residing and further sought direction
to cancel the Lookout Notice. The learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore, by order, dated 29.04.2021 permitted the petitioner to
travel to Dubai on condition that the petitioner shall file affidavit before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore that he
will cooperate with the trial as and when required and the petitioner shall
furnish the details of his email address and ID, mobile number which is used
by him in Dubai so that the 2nd respondent Police can contact him. In
compliance to the order, dated 29.04.2021, the petitioner filed an affidavit
dated 05.05.2021.
4.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner
approached the respondents 1 and 2 and sought cancellation of the Lookout
Notice, but all went in vain. The petitioner filed a petition on 04.09.2021
before the learned Additional Mahila Judge (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore
seeking direction to cancel the Lookout Notice and the same was returned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
with endorsement that the learned Additional Mahila Judge (Magistrate
Level), Coimbatore cannot pass any order in the petition. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.8231 of 2021 to quash the FIR in
Crime No.3 of 2021. This Court, by order, dated 06.05.2021 observed that
the petitioner is an innocent victim in the crossfire between his brother and
sister in law. While the investigation may go on, the respondents 1 and 2
shall not file any final report against the petitioner. He further submitted
that after the marriage, the petitioner, his wife and children are living in
rented house in flat No.314, Rashd Bakid Building, A1 Qusais, Dubai. The
petitioner's elder son is now pursuing his education in Dubai and his wife is
the housewife taking care of the children. The petitioner is the sole earning
member of his family. Owing to Lookout Notice and arrest, the petitioner's
family is severely affected both mentally, economically and physiologically.
The petitioner's absence in work, has paralysed the entire office work and
the said company is facing difficulty in running the business. The
petitioner's restriction to travel would jeopardised his future and hence, he
prayed for appropriate direction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
5.The petitioner in the typed set filed his passport and ID proof,
residence proof and his son's birth certificate, Tenancy Contract Certificate
and the copy of the affidavit filed before the learned Additional Mahila
Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore, etc.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner is the 2nd accused and he is
required for investigation in Crime No.3 of 2021. Apart from the offence
under Section 498A IPC, the petitioner is facing prosecution for offence
under Sections 406, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. On the complaint, FIR registered against the petitioner, his brother and
his mother and there are specific allegations against them. The petitioner
was frequently travelling to foreign countries and not cooperated with the
enquiry. Now, the petitioner making claim that he is the innocent victim
and he caught in the crossfire between his brother and sister in law cannot
be accepted and there are enough materials to proceed against him. He
further submitted that the investigation completed and charge filed before
the learned Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore and
the same was taken on file in C.C.No.1863 of 2021. If the petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
permitted to leave India, he will not abscond and appear for trial and the
trial would get stalled and hence, he strongly opposed this petition.
7.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted on
instructions received from the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent detained the
petitioner and handed over to the 2nd respondent. On 10.03.2021, the 3rd
respondent received message from 1st respondent seeking detention of the
petitioner and the retention to be kept in live till 08.03.2022. The 1st
respondent had sent a communication to the 3rd respondent detailing the
history of the case and the same is extracted hereunder:-
“It is submitted that a case in AWPS Perur PS
Cr.No.03/2021 U/S 408(A), 406, 506(2) IPC & 4 of DP Act
was registered on 05.03.2021. The complainant filed by
Archana Raj for which her husband Pratheesh Raj, her
father-in-law Prajeesh Raj, her mother-in law Parvathi
W/o Sivaraj with the common intention to harass her
demanding money and jewells and illegal contact with
ladies. The A1 husband of complainant Pratheesh Raj,
Elder Brother Prajeesh Raj and his mother Parwathi may
be left for Brunai, its in Asian country.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
During the course of investigation, the
investigation officer reveals that the A1-Pratheesh Raj, A-
2 elder brother Prajeesh Raj and A-3 his mother Parwathi
committed the offence with the knowledge and inducement
of his family.
Since A1-Pratheesh, A-2 elder brother
Prajeeshraj and A-3 his mother Parwathi had gone to
Brunai, Asian country still they are in absconding. As the
A1 to A3 presence are direly required for the
investigation, it is humbly requested that the concerned
authorities may be requested to issue look out circular to
all. the international and domestic airport authorities and
to the authorities of immigration in India. and they may
also be requested to secure the accused A1 to A2 and
impound their passport. here with sending particulars for
al and A2.”
8.Immediately on receipt of the above communication on
10.03.2021, the 3rd respondent gave necessary instructions to the
Intelligence Officers of the various posts. It for the Law Enforcing Agency
under whom enquiry/investigation may be pending against the petitioner to
take a call in this matter. As regards the Bureau of Immigration is
concerned, they have no objection in granting arrival/departure to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
petitioner if the originator of the LOC modifies or deletes it. The letter of
the Bureau of Immigration (MHA) Government of India No.26, Haddows
Road, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Chennai is extracted as follows:-
“The respondents 3 has not initiated any Look Out
Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. Immigration
authorities act on LOCS originated by various law
enforcement agenceis.
It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble High Court
may direct the concerned Law enforcement agency/agencies
under whom an enquiry/investigation may be pending against
the petitioner, to take a call in this matter.
Bureau of Immigration has no objection in granting
arrival/departure to the petitioner if the originator of the LOC
modifies or deletes it.
The Hon'ble High Court may be informed
accordingly for the dismissal of the case.”
9.The learned counsel further submitted only on the request of the
1st respondent, the Lookout Circular was issued and with regard to the
nature of complaint, he is not aware. If the respondents 1 and 2 do not
require any restrictive order, the same can be removed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
10.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
11.It is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court time and
again have given guidelines that in the case of matrimonial cases, the Police
officer not to register FIR immediately, find out the possibility of
settlement. If the mediation fails, thereafter the FIR can be registered. In
this case, it is only a matrimonial dispute. The complaint in this case was
lodged on 05.03.2021, on the same day, the FIR was registered. As regards
the petitioner is concerned, except passing reference, there is no serious
allegations against him. From the requisition of the 1st respondent for
Lookout Notice, the copy of the requisition was issued to the IG
Intelligence, Chennai; IGP, Crime Branch CID, Chennai; DIG Intelligence,
Chennai; SP, Sec.Branch CID, Chennai; SP, Q Branch CID, Chennai; SP,
Crime Branch CID, Chennai and All ICP/Immigration Check Posts
Including Sea and Land Ports in India. Further, the message has been sent
through radio. The requisition for issuing Lookout Circular is for the
persons, who is involved in offences of serious in nature. The Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
Apex Court and this Court time and again had come across several
matrimonial cases wherein for a mere Lookout Notice are issued against the
family members of estranged husband on a complaint under Section 498A
IPC. Thus, the Lookout Notice is misused for the purpose of creating
physiological pressure and put the entire in-laws, families to trauma and
forced them for a settlement on this terms or just for fulling their ego.
12.It is strange to see that even at the level of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police and the Superintendent of Police, who are
authorized officers at the senior level in the Department mechanically cause
such request to the Immigration Authorities on the request from the
sponsoring Investigating Officer without verifying the request and finding
whether it is absolutely necessary. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and
the Superintendent of Police to independently peruse the material of the
case. Only as a last resort, request for the Lookout Circular to be made, not
not at the first instance. This case is the classic example of misuse of the
Lookout Notice. In this case, FIR registered on the same date of lodging the
complaint and thereafter, radio message sent to the Immigration Authorities,
following it, a requisition on the 5th day to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
unknowingly travelled to India to meet his mother and was detained on his
arrival and restriction for travel imposed.
13.This Court finds that since the investigation completed and
charge sheet filed, there is no necessity for further restricting the petitioner's
movement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Menaka Gandhi
Versus Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597” held that it is the
constitution right of a person to go abroad and no one to be deprived of his
life and personal liberty without following the procedure established by law
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the
persons involved in the criminal case for offences of serious in nature and
who are antisocial elements, their movements to be restricted in such cases
need may arise.
14.In this case, the petitioner already filed affidavit before the trial
Court and gave undertaking that he shall appear as and when directed by the
trial Court, he will not be impediment in the progress of the trial. Hence,
the travelling embargo issued on the petitioner in Crime No.3 of 2021 on
the file of the 2nd respondent Police is hereby set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
15.In view of above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The
petitioner is free to travel in and out of India. The petitioner shall appear
before the trial Court through his counsel on all hearing dates. The
petitioner's presence is indispensable on the days when he has to receive the
copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing of judgment. The petitioner
shall appear before the trial Court on any date if the trial Court directs. No
costs.
27.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Superintendent of Police (Rural),
State Bank Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perur,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
3.The Immigration Officer,
Office of the Foreigners Regional Registration,
Bureau of Immigration,
Airlings Buildings, CIAL, Nedumbassery,
Cochin Airport PO, Kochi-638 111,
Kerala.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.21600 of 2021
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
