Dismissed

K.Manikandan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 Sept 2019CRL OP/21725/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking recall of a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued to immigration authorities. Relying on precedent, the Court held that the LOC lapsed as the petitioner was already secured via execution of a non-bailable warrant, rendering the circular non-est.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition stands closed. The petitioner is unable to raise grievances against the LOC.

K.Manikandan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21725 of 2019

¶6

K.Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, No.18, Pudukuppam New Street, Pudukuppam, Cuddalore – 607001.

¶9

State Rep.by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope, Kattumannar Koil,

¶10

Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police to recall the “Lookout Circular/Notice vide LOC No.2019400358 under Ref.No.07/CUD/DCRB/2018 dated 02.01.2019 issued to the Foreigner Regional Registration & Immigration Authorities of Chennai International Airport in Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of the second respondent police.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Court, vide order dated 17.11.2017 in W.P.No.29643 of 2017 [Aravindh Narayanasamy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and two others] had observed that when the Lookout Circular (short in LOC) is pending, the person against whom the LOC has been issued was secured and produced before the Investigation Officer, the LOC thereafter becomes non-est in the eye of law.

¶14

In the present case on hand, the Non Bailable Warrant came to be issued against the petitioner on 20.02.2018, pursuant to which, LOC was issued on 02.01.2019, for the purpose of

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

securing the petitioner. Pursuant to the circular report, Non Bailable Warrant was executed on 16.03.2019.

¶17

As such, the purpose for which the LOC was issued, had been met and therefore, in view of the earlier decision of this Court, the LOC itself is deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the petitioner may not have any grievances against the present impugned Notice vide LOC No.2019400358 under Ref.No.07/CUD/DCRB/2018 dated 02.01.2019, issued to the Foreigner Regional Registration & Immigration Authorities of Chennai International Airport in Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of the second respondent police.

¶18

Accordingly, Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Insp.Cell)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
klt/bkn
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the District Superintendent of Police,
No.18, Pudukuppam New Street,
Pudukuppam, Cuddalore – 607001.

¶20

The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sethiyathope, Kattumannar Koil,
Cuddalore District.

¶21

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2 ccs to Mr.E.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.78017
Crl.O.P.No.21725 of 2019
RK(CO)
SSM(16/09/2019)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Manikandan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Manikandan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Rajan Vs State Rep by

K.R.Loganathan Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Andal Vs The Commissioner of Police

K.Gurusamy, M/81, A-6 Vs State by

Karthik Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mrs.Sangeetha Devi Vs Inspector of Police