Recently, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a petitioner in a case involving allegations under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. The court held that continuing the LOC without justifiable grounds infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Observing that the investigating authorities themselves found no evidence against the petitioner, the court emphasized the need to adhere to due process in curtailing individual liberties.
The petition arose from an FIR registered at Mahila Police Station, Jaipur (East), under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC. The LOC and standing arrest warrants were issued against two petitioners who reside in the United States. During the investigation, the police concluded that one of the petitioners, Bhawana Jain, was not involved in the alleged offences. Subsequently, an application to recall the LOC and arrest warrants was submitted by the Investigating Officer, but no decision was made. Aggrieved by this delay, the petitioners approached the Court seeking the withdrawal of the LOC and the return of goods seized during the investigation.
The counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the LOC against Bhawana Jain was unwarranted since the police investigation found no evidence against her, and the prosecution was not inclined to proceed. Furthermore, it was submitted that the seized goods were deteriorating and should be returned either to the petitioners or the complainant to prevent further damage. The counsel emphasized that the fundamental right to liberty and freedom of movement could not be curtailed without lawful justification.
The Court delved into the purpose and scope of issuing a Look Out Circular (LOC), explaining that it serves as a preventive measure to ensure the presence of individuals who are evading legal processes, such as avoiding arrest or failing to appear in court despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Court emphasized that such measures should not be misused or applied indiscriminately, especially when there is no concrete evidence against the individual. The Court pointed out that in this case, the police had already found no involvement of Bhawana Jain in the alleged offences, as stated in their investigation report. Therefore, the continued existence of the LOC against her was not only unnecessary but also an overreach that infringed upon her fundamental rights. Referring to the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court reiterated the principle that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and must follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. The Court remarked, “Continuation of LOC against the petitioner No.2 would certainly amount to violation of her Fundamental Right of personal liberty, contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Her right to travel out of India cannot be curtailed except according to the due process of law”.
It further observed that the issuance of LOCs must be guided by clearly defined criteria and reasonable grounds. The court noted that the absence of a decision on the application to recall the LOC demonstrated a lapse in procedural adherence by the authorities. It underscored that procedural safeguards are indispensable to prevent misuse of restrictive measures like LOCs. Regarding the seized goods, the court referred to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which emphasizes the prompt disposal of property seized during an investigation. The court stated that retaining seized goods unnecessarily leads to their degradation, causing undue hardship to the parties. It emphasized that such items should be returned to the rightful party after due process to prevent unnecessary litigation and loss.
The Court quashed the LOC issued against Bhawana Jain, clarifying that the authorities could request a fresh LOC if criminal proceedings were initiated against her in the future. On the matter of the seized goods, the Court directed the trial court to decide on their release within one month if an application is filed by either party. The criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Sunny Jain & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7989/2024
Order Date: 29.11.2024
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Prakash Chand Jain, Roshan Vishwakarma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vivek Choudhary, Manvendra Singh Shekhawat
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
