Dismissed

Naveed Khan, v. The Union of India

Telangana HC7 Mar 2018WP/7481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a lookout circular. Relying on an identical set of circumstances in W.P.No.14222 of 2015, the Court permitted the petitioner to move the appropriate court for withdrawal of the LOC rather than granting the writ directly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to apply to XV ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad for withdrawal of Look Out Circular.

Naveed Khan, Vs The Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7481 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of lookout circular as against petitioner on the ground of pendency of Criminal proceedings emanating from Crime No 224/2013 on the file of the Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad and the consequential CC 90/2011 pending on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally is in violation of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well in violation of Sec.105 of Cr.P.C and other relevant statutory provisions and executive instructions and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the lookout circular issued against the petitioner having passport No.M6568485.”

¶6

Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned Government Pleader for Home (Telangana) appearing for respondents 4 to 6, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶7

When the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in identical set of circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.14222 of 2015 on 16.06.2015 and a copy of the said order is placed on record. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶8

¶9

“In view of the above, taking into consideration the nature of controversy and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, permitting the petitioner herein to move the Court of XV ACMM Court at Nampally, Hyderabad, where C.C.No.179 of 2015 is pending and to make an appropriate application within one week from today seeking withdrawal of Look Out Circular (LOC) and it is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to set out the reasons for making the said request including that he has already surrendered and has been abiding with the directions issued from time to time by the Court. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the learned XV ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs”.

¶10

Following the above said order and for the reasons recorded therein, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms thereof permitting the petitioner herein to approach appropriate forum of law.

¶11

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶13

Date : 07.03.2018 Note :- Furnish C.C. within two (2) days. B/O AMD

¶14

¶15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.7481 OF 2018

¶17

Date: 07.03.2018

¶18

AMD

Naveed Khan, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveed Khan, v. The Union of India

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

Sri Harshitha (E.M.) School, Diwancheruvu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Bheem Rao Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Rathod Mangulal Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Peethala Siva Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Abdul Majeed Khan Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Munawar Sultan Vs the State of Telangana