Abhishek Gautam Vs UOI and Others

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	CWP No. 3710/2026
	Decided on: 17.06.2026
Abhishek Gautam	…..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

UOI & Ors. ......Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………… Coram

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rew Whether approved for rep	*al Dua, Judge.* orting?¹Yes.**
For the petitioner:	Mr. Parav Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Badola & Ms. Srishti Ramesh, Advocates.
For the respondents:	Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1.
	Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4.
	Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶8

Petitioner is permanent resident of the State of Himachal

¶9

Pradesh and an Indian citizen. He is statedly working as a Senior Scientist in PHF Science, Christchurch, New Zealand. Petitioner is also stated to be holder of a Permanent Resident Visa, New Zealand issued to him on 23.06.2024. He seeks quashing of a Lookout Circular issued against him. It is the projected case of the petitioner that while on way

¶10

back from Christchurch, New Zealand to his home in Shimla,

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2

¶13

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶14

H.P. (India), he was apprehended and detained by the Immigration officials on 27.02.2026 upon arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi. This was on count of a Lookout Circular (LOC) No. 2025407678 issued against him. The originator of the LOC was the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. The LOC was issued against the petitioner pursuant to FIR No. 193/2024 dated 12.08.2024, registered under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Baddi. The FIR was registered at the instance of petitioner's wife-respondent No.5, who had levelled allegations regarding certain matrimonial issues against her husband, i.e. the petitioner, as also against her in-laws.

¶15

At the airport, petitioner was handed over a notice dated 27.02.2026 issued under Section 35(3) of the BNS by respondent No.4, directing him to appear before the said authority at Police Station Baddi on 01.03.2026 for the purpose of investigation and to cooperate in the investigation process. Petitioner was released thereafter.

¶16

The case set up by the petitioner is that he appeared before respondent No.4 on the assigned date, participated & cooperated in the investigations in FIR No. 193/2024; His statement was also recorded therein; An undertaking was also obtained from him by respondent No.4 that he would not leave the country without the prior approval of the Investigating Officer or the Court of law.

¶17

3

¶18

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶19

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the LOC on the ground that it

¶20

has infringed his right to travel abroad and that, on account of such interference, irreparable loss would be caused to him, adversely affecting his career and employment abroad. The petitioner pleads that he was required to resume his duties in New Zealand with effect from 02.04.2026 and, for this purpose, had got his return ticket booked on 14.12.2025 for travel on 31.03.2026. However, due to issuance of the impugned LOC, he is not being permitted to leave the country. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined and cooperated with the investigations. Petitioner has also furnished an undertaking that he shall continue to participate in the investigation as and when required. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to keep the LOC alive against the petitioner, particularly when the same was not even preceded by any notice whatsoever having been issued to him in relation to the FIR in question. It was further submitted that had the petitioner been aware that he had been arrayed as an accused in the FIR in question or that his presence was required for the purposes of investigation, he would have joined the investigation immediately.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the trial in the FIR No. 193/2024 could not proceed for a long-time awaiting service upon the petitioner; That it was only after the petitioner was compelled to join the investigation pursuant to the LOC

¶22

4

¶23

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶24

in question that he cooperated with the investigation. In case the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad, there is a strong apprehension of his not joining the investigation in the FIR and also not participating in the proceedings during the trial.

¶25

3 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶26

4. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was solemnized on 13.12.2018 in District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner moved to New Zealand in March, 2019. Serious matrimonial disputes appear to have arisen between the parties. Even in the present writ petition, allegations and counter-allegations have been levelled by them against each other, however, the same are not required to be examined for the purpose of adjudication of the instant petition. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner, through his General Power of Attorney holder, instituted a petition on 01.04.2024 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce before the learned Family Court, Una, which has been registered as Petition No. 125/2024. Respondent No. 5 has also lodged FIR No. 193/2024 against the petitioner and her in-laws. The impugned LOC No. 2025407678 (a copy of which was placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General) was admittedly issued against the petitioner in relation to this FIR. The LOC was to remain in force until deletion request was made by the originator i.e. respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶27

5

¶28

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶29

Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners

¶30

Division issued an office memorandum on 22.02.2021 (Annexure P-9), circulating guidelines for issuance of LOC in respect of the Indian citizen as also the Foreigners. Paras-3 & 4 thereof are based upon a

¶31

decision rendered in Summer Singh Salkan Vs. Assistant Director & Ors.² The said paras being relevant, thus, are reproduced hereinafter: -

¶32

“3. In a related judgment delivered on 11.08.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1315/2008-Summer Singh Salkan Vs. Asstt. Director & Ors and Crl. Ref.1/2006-Court on its Own Motion Re: State Vs. Gurnek Singh etc., the Court has answered four questions raised by a lower court on the LOC. These questions framed by the Court were as follows:

¶33

(a) What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Look-out-Circular and under what circumstances?

¶34

(b) What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Look-out-Circular? (c) What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out Circular has been opened? (d) What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances the subordinate courts can intervene?

¶35

4. The Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment dated 11.08.2010 answered these questions, which are reproduced below, for guidance of all concerned agencies:

¶36

(a) Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in thẻ trial court despite Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

¶37

(b) The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details and reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

¶38

(c) The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.0. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial

¶39

2 W.P. (Crl.) No. 1315/2008 decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi a/w connected matters on 11.08.2010

¶40

6

¶41

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶42

court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

¶43

(d) LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.”

¶44

In terms of above extracted portion of the office memorandum, recourse to LOC can be taken by the investigating agency in cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code or other penal laws, where the accused had been deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. There are certain provisions in the aforesaid office memorandum, enabling issuance of LOC on the direction of any Criminal Court in India and also in some exceptional cases.

¶45

In the instant case, no exceptional circumstances existed for issuance of the LOC against the petitioner. Present is not a case where the petitioner was deliberately evading arrest or, despite issuance of coercive measures/non-bailable warrants, had failed to appear before the Trial Court/investigation agency. In fact, the specific averment made by the petitioner in para-5 of the writ petition, that he had not received any communication regarding registration of the FIR through any mode, including e-mail etc., has not been specifically denied by respondents No. 2 to 4. Given this, petitioner's assertion has

¶46

7

¶47

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶48

to be believed to be correct that prior to 27.02.2026, he was unaware of any requirement or necessity to join the investigation in the FIR, for the simple reason that no such requirement or necessity had ever been brought to his notice by the respondents.

¶49

It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had obtained any bail in the said FIR from the learned Trial Court, wherein any condition had been imposed directing him to deposit his passport or not to leave India without the permission of the learned Trial Court.

¶50

In terms of the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4, a supplementary challan dated 02.03.2026 was prepared and presented against the petitioner in continuation of the original challan that had been filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan. The case is now scheduled for listing before the learned Trial Court on 18.08.2026 for the service of the accused persons. The offence for which the petitioner has been charged attracts a maximum punishment of three years. Petitioner is facing charges of commission of cognizable offences relating to matrimonial cruelty and allied acts. The petitioner is not facing charges relating to the sovereignty, security or integrity of the country. He is not even facing any charge relating to financial irregularities. The LOC, in the given circumstances, has to be held to have been issued in haste and in the absence of conditions warranting issuance of such an LOC.

¶51

8

¶52

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶53

It is not a case where the petitioner was evading arrest, or not joining the investigation, or not appearing before the learned Trial Court despite information, notice, or any coercive measures having been taken against him. In fact, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has fairly submitted that the said respondent has no objection if petitioner's prayer in the writ petition, is allowed.

¶54

5 . For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Look Out Circular bearing No. 2025407678 issued against the petitioner in relation to FIR No. 193/2024 dated 12.08.2024 registered at Police Station Baddi, is quashed. This shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:-

¶55

(i) Petitioner shall deposit Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the sum of Rs.5 lakh before the concerned learned Trial Court within a week.

¶56

(ii) Petitioner shall also furnish two local sureties in the sum of Rs. 2 lakh each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶57

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

¶58

(iv) Petitioner shall join the proceedings of the learned Trial Court, unless exempted in accordance with law. The trial is now stated to be scheduled for 18.08.2026. The petitioner shall cause his presence before the learned Trial Court on the said date.

¶59

9

¶60

( 2026:HHC:22790 )

¶61

(v) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the aforesaid

¶62

effect before the learned Trial Court within the aforesaid period of one week.

¶63

Upon petitioner’s complying with the above conditions and

¶64

to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, he shall be at liberty to travel abroad.

¶65

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 to 4 undertake to apprise about passing of this order to the concerned quarter for the compliance & further necessary action.

¶66

The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶67

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶68

17^th June, 2026 (rohit)

Abhishek Gautam v. UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Abhishek Gautam v. UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rita Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs M/s Dr Neena Pahwa Maternity Home and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs M/s City Heart Super Speciality Hospital and Another

Neena Puri and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Dev Krishan Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Archana Rana and Another Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others