Madras High Court
M.Khader Aslam @ Aslam Abdul ... vs The Commissioner Of Police on 4 April, 2022
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.P.No.14724 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.15628 & 15629 of 2021
1.M.Khader Aslam @ Aslam Abdul Kadher Shatir
2.S.Kyrunissa @ Kyrunissa Syed Mohamed ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
E.V.K's Sampath Salai,
Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime against Women and Children Wing,
(Inside Thousand Lights Police Station Compound),
Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Vepery Range, Vepery, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-5, AWPS Vepery Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Chief Immigration Officer,
26, Shastri Bhavan Annexe,
Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 034.
Tamilnadu.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
6.Mubashira Mohamed Ajmal ..Respondents
(R6 Suo Motu impleaded vide
order dated 23.08.2021 made in
W.P.No.14724 of 2021)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the respondents to withdraw the LOC issued against
the petitioners in connection with Cr.No.3 of 2020 pending before the 4th
respondent by considering the representation dated 13.03.2021 and
26.06.2021.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R4.
M/s.Geetha Rameseshan for R6
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to withdraw the LOC issued
against the petitioners in connection with Cr.No.3 of 2020 pending before
the 4th respondent by considering the representation dated 13.03.2021 and
26.06.2021.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the
complaint given by the 6th respondent/defacto complainant, the case in
Cr.No.3 of 2020 was registered by the 4th respondent against the petitioners
and their son for the offences under Section 498(A) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
3. He would further submit that the petitioners had approached this
Court in Crl.O.P.No.16626 of 2020 and this Court by an order dated
28.10.2020 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Pursuant to the
anticipatory bail, the petitioners surrendered before the learned Additional
Mahila, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore to execute the sureties and
they have also complied with the direction as directed by this Court. The
petitioners have not absconded. Since the petitioners were unnecessarily
implicated without there being any specific allegation against them they have
also filed Crl.OP.No.2584 of 2021 seeking to quash the FIR as against them
and this Court has also granted interim stay for filing final report until
further orders. He would submit that the petitioner's son who is arrayed as
Al is absconding. Whereas, the respondent police instead of taking action
against the son of the petitioners have directed issuance of LOC against
these petitioners and due to the issuance of LOC, the movements of the
petitioners are curtailed. The petitioners undertake to abide by the due
process of law and they also undertake to appear before the Trial Court as
and when the Charge Sheet is filed and the case is taken up for trial. The
petitioners do not have any intention of absconding or evading the due
process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
4. The learned counsel would further submit that the conduct of the
respondent in issuing the LOC against the petitioners and the consequent
denial of right to travel has infringed and abrogated right to movement
guaranteed under the Constitution and in violation to the law.
5. The learned counsel would further submit that object of the LOC is
to ensure that a person is available for interrogation or trial or enquiry. Now
the Court has released them on bail subject to certain conditions. The
petitioners have furnished sureties and they appeared for interrogation and
later the bail conditions have also been relaxed. Thereby, the apprehension
that the petitioners may not make themselves available and amenable to law,
has gone. The purpose of issuance of LOC inrespect of the petitioners is not
necessary at this stage.
6. He would further submit that merely because a person is involved
in a criminal case, he is not denude of his fundamental rights. It is the
fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign
countries. One's such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. The
petitioners cannot be held liable and responsible for the non appearance of
their son.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
7. In support of his contentions, he would rely on the judgment of this
Court in (i)Arockia Jeyabalan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer
reported in 2014 (4) LW 841 and (ii)E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy and Ors.
Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and another reported in 2013 (2)
LW (crl) 628, thereby he would seek to issue direction to withdraw the
LOC.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioners and their son are
accused in Cr.No.3/2020 registered by the fourth respondent for the offences
under Section 498(A) of IPC. He would submit that the petitioner's son is
evading arrest and still absconding and thereby the respondent has sent a
request to the authorities to initiate LOC against the petitioners. However,
he would submit that the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail and
they have furnished sureties and they have also complied with the conditions
imposed by this Court and later the condition has also been relaxed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent/defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
complainant would submit that on the complaint given by the sixth
respondent a case in in Cr.No.3 of 2020 for the offences under Section
498(A) of IPC has been registered. He would submit that the first accused
is evading arrest and still at Dubai. He has obtained loan in the names of
the 6th respondent, thereby she is unable to go to Dubai. There are totally
five children born out of the wedlock, the first three children are in Dubai
living with the first accused, the other two children are living in India with
the defacto complainant, she would object for withdrawal of the LOC.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioners undertakes to appear before the Trial Court as and when the case
is taken up for Trial and undertakes to furnish the E-mail ID.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned
counsel for the 6th respondent.
12. Admittedly, in this case the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3
and they were not absconding and they have been granted anticipatory bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
pursuant to which they have surrendered before the respondent/police and
they have also duly complied with the conditions imposed by this Court.
Further, it is stated that the petitioners have filed petition to quash the FIR
petition and this Court has also granted interim stay in Crl.OP.No.2584 of
2021 not to file the final report against the petitioners till the disposal of the
above case.
13. In Arockia Jeyabalan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer
reported in 2014 (4) LW 841 this Court held as under:-
"11.Therefore, it is clear that the only
reason for the police making a request to the
Bureau of Immigration to issue a Look Out
Circular against the petitioner was the
registration of a complaint against him and his
non availability for interrogation. The purpose of
issue of the Look Out Circular now stands served,
with the interception of the petitioner at the
Bangalore Airport on 31.1.2014 and his arrest
and detention to judicial custody. The petitioner
has now come out on bail and has also complid
with the bail conditions.
12.The object of a Look Out Circular is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
ensure that a person is available for interrogation
or trial or enquiry. Now that the Court has
released him on bail subject to certain conditions
as well as sureties, the apprehension that the
petitioner may not make himself available and
amenable to law, has gone.
13.Therefore, W.P.No.22205 of 2014 is
allowed and the Look Out Circular is quashed, in
as much as the purpose of issuing the same has
now been served and the petitioner has subjected
himself to the long arm of the law."
14. Further, this Court in E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy and Ors. Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police and another reported in 2013 (2) LW
(crl) 628 has held as under :-
"9.It is basic that merely because a person is
involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his
fundamental rights. It is the fundamental of a
person to move anywhere he likes including
foreign countries. One's such personal freedom
and liberty cannot be abridged. In the celebrated
in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR
1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
the constitutional right of persons to go abroad.
The phrase no one shall be deprived of his ''life
and liberty'' except procedure established by law
employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive
effect on fundamental right and human right.
MENAKA GANDHI (supra) ushered a new era in
the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had
gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process
of Law'.
15. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. The
respondents 2 to 4 are directed to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued
against the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.03/2020 within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners
are at liberty to travel abroad. The petitioners shall furnish their E-mail ID
to the 4th respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
04.04.2022
jas/tsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14724 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J.,
jas/tsh
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
E.V.K's Sampath Salai,
Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime against Women and Children Wing,
(Inside Thousand Lights Police Station Compound),
Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Vepery Range, Vepery, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-5, AWPS Vepery Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Chief Immigration Officer,
26, Shastri Bhavan Annexe,
Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 034. Tamilnadu.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.14724 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.15628 & 15629 of 2021
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
