Madras High Court
Zakir Hussain vs The State Rep. By on 31 January, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
Zakir Hussain ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
W-23, All Women Police Station,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
(Ref.Cr.No.11/2016)
2. Sabhibha Banu ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3114
of 2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai for offences under section 498(A) & 406 IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sheik Ismail for Mr.P.N.Vignesh
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
ORDER
The Petitioner/A2 facing trial in C.C.No.3114 of 2019 for offence
under section 498(A), 406 and 506 (i) of IPC has filed this quash
application.
2. Initially Charge Sheet was filed against this petitioner in
C.C.No.2594 of 2017 in Crime No.11 of 2016 in which the petitioner was
arrayed as A4.
3. The 2nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. She
married one Shahir Hussain the brother of the petitioner herein on
04.10.2009. During the marriage, as per customary practice more than 60
sovereigns of gold along with cash were gifted to her and apart from that
marriage expenses were also incurred by the family of the de-facto
complainant. After marriage, she resided along with her husband at
No:15, VM Street Mir Shahibpet, Royapet, Chennai – 600 014.
Thereafter, the demand of dowry started by her husband's family and
entire family members of her husband were constantly demanding dowry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
from the family of the second respondent, by subjecting the de-facto
complainant to cruelty.
4. While so, on 06.03.2010 she had left to Abu Dhabi along with
her husband and lived together for 6 months. But still the harassment and
cruelty continued at the hands of her husband and she was abandoned.
Thereafter, on 22.09.2010 she left Abu Dhabi and came back to Chennai
again she was compelled to stay in her in-laws place and the demand for
dowry continued, due to which her father unable to withstand the tortures
given by her husband's family to her daughter passed away on
24.04.2015. Even after that, her in-laws tortured her and abused her for
not forbearing a child. The fight between the 2nd respondent and her
husband continued over mobile phone.
5. On 29.09.2011 she again left to Abu Dhabi and due to her
husband's compulsion she joined as a school teacher and worked there
and later worked in a private company and handed over all her earnings
to her husband. While so, her husband started suspecting her fidelity had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
tortured her and even locked her in the bathroom. On 19.03.2014, since
her Brother-in-law Nazir Hussain marriage was fixed the second
respondent along with her husband has come to Chennai. Thereafter her
husband left her in Chennai and left to Abu Dhabi. But, again she was
suspected to cruelty at the hands of her in-laws and thereafter she left to
Abubadi and again came to Chennai for medical treatment and thereafter
her husband left her and went to Adu Dhabi
6. When the brother of the second respondent, questioned the
accused in the manner in which her sister has been treated during
February 2015 he was cruelly assaulted. Thereafter, she had left the
matrimonial house and joined her mother and later the complaint was
lodged against the accused.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case on
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against 6 accused.
During May 2017 A1 and A2 absconded themselves and not appeared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
before the Trail Court and hence the case in C.C.No.2594 of 2017 was
not progressive and thereafter the case against A1-the husband of 2nd
respondent and A4- the brother-in-law was split up and C.C.No.3114 of
2019 was assigned and due to the non appearance of the petitioner
before trial Court, NBW was issued against the petitioner. He further
submitted that the petitioner after coming to know about the NBW issued
against him, had appeared before XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate
Saidapet Chennai on 17.04.2021 and thereafter NBW was recalled.
Earlier a request for LOC was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Mylapore in C.No.01/DC Myp/Camp/2019 dated 02.01.2019
against Zakir Hussain S/o Aktar Hussain holding passport No.N2780392.
He further submitted that based on the said request, the Bureau of
Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India had opened
an LOC on 02.01.2019.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
though in the LOC request it is stated that LOC will be in force for one
year, would automatically lapse after a year of opening , unless reviewed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
and recommended for retention by the originator. same is seldom
followed once the name is found in LOC it always remains. He further
submitted that the petitioner after recalling of Non Bailable Warrant had
submitted the intimation from the Court to the Inspector of Police
Royapettah Police Station informing that recall of NBW, but despite the
same the petitioner's name is still found in LOC list and in view of the
same the petitioner is unable to proceed to United Arab Emirates where
he is employed. He further submitted that the petitioner has to go for
employment to United Arab Emirates and make his earnings to sustain
himself. He further submitted that there is no purpose keeping LOC
pending. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to co-operate
with the Trail and proceed with the Trial before the trial Court.
9. Though the prayer sought for in this Criminal Original Petition is
for quashing for C.C.No.3114 of 2019, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that it would suffice for the present if the LOC pending
on the file of Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs),
Government of India is quashed with liberty to agitate other grounds in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
CC.No.3114 of 2019 later.
10. When the NBW warrant issued against the petitioner is recalled
there is no purpose of keeping LOC pending. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
catena of judgments following the case of “Menaka Gandhi Versus
Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597” consistently held that it is
a constitutional right of a person to travel abroad and no one should be
deprived of his life and liberty except the procedure established in law.
This Court following same in the case of “E.V.Perumalsamy Reddy and
others Versus State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
reported in 2014 (1) MLJ 125” and in the case of “S.Martin Versus the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch reported in
2014 (1) MLJ 647” held that once a person is granted bail, no question
of sustaining Look Out Circular would arise, unless the person is involved
in any heinous crimes and in terrorist activities. In this case, the issues is
a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
11.As regards the LOC is concerned, the Look Out Circular issued
by the Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of
India, New Delhi against the petitioner (Passport No.N2780392) in LOC
Suspect No.from 1940036 to 1940036 is a collateral act, which is on the
request of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore District,
Chennai. Since the petitioner by his affidavit undertakes to participate in
trial and the case is arising out of the matrimonial dispute, this Court
quashes the Look Out Circular issued by the Bureau of Immigration
(Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, New Delhi against the
petitioner (Passport No.N2780392) in LOC Suspect No.from 1940036 to
1940036.
This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
31.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rap/mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
(Note: Issue Order Copy on 02.02.2022)
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W-23, All Women Police Station,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014
(Ref.Cr.No.11/2016)
2. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate
Saidapet Chenniai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rap/arr
CRL.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2021
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
