Disposed

Dr.Haranath Policherla v. Union of India and 3 Others

Telangana HC9 Mar 2021WP/4041/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity and arbitrariness of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against an NRI petitioner accused in a Section 498-A case. The Court directed respondents not to arrest or interdict the petitioner pending disposal, while directing them to follow government guidelines for LOC renewal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed not to arrest or interdict the petitioner under the valid Look Out Circular; directed to consider guidelines for renewal.

Dr.Haranath Policherla Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4041 0F 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Dr. Haranath Policherla, S/o. Policherla Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 62 vears, occ. IMedical -P-ractitioner, Resident of Flat No.302, Fortune Reside"ncy, Midtiapur, Hyderabad-500033. Presently residing in State of Michigan, USA.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

U.nion of.lndia, Rep. by-its_ Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer House, IMansingh Road, New Delhi.

¶11

Burelu of Immigration, East Block-Vlll, Level-V, Sector-1, R.K.puram,

¶12

New Delhi-1 10066. Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate,

¶14

Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032.

¶15

The lnspector of Police cum Station House Officer, Ir/iyapur police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

Petition under Article 220 of the Constrtution of tndia ,;;fr:ttiPli:T: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus to:

¶17

a) To declare that the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner has lapsed in view of the office N/emorandum daled 2710112020 by lvinistry of Home Affairs, Govt. of lndia.

¶18

b) Direct the Respondents to not renew the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to not interfere with the Petitioner inbound and outbound journey to and from lndia pending disposal of the maln writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Look Out Circular (LOC) in the event the same has been renewed against the Petitioner herein, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DAMMALAPATI SREENIVAS FOR SRI. ROHIT POGULA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S. JANARDHAN GOUD

¶25

(sc FoR cENTRAL GOVT COU)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN}

¶29

WRIT PETITION^{No.4O41of 2O2L}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is^{filed to declare the Look Out} Circular^(LOC) issued^{against the petitioneras illegal and} arbitrary and also^{to direct the respondents not to renew the} Look Out Circular^{againstthe petitioner.}

¶32

Heard Sri Dammalapati^{Sreenivas,learned senior} counsel representing^{Sri Rohit Poguia,learned counselfor the} petitioner and the learned Government^{Pleader for Home'}

¶33

Petitioner herein is^{NRI who is presently residing} in United States of America^{(USA). He is accusedNo.l in} Cr.No.987 of 2019. On the^{complaint lodgedby Smt.Swathi} Policherla, the Police, Miyapur^{have registeredthe abovecase} for the offences under Section^{498-A IPC against the} petitioner herein.

¶34

The petitioner herein filed^{an applicationunder} Section 482 Cr.P.C^{vide Crl P.No.i6BB of 2O2O seeking to} quash the proceedings ln^{Cr.No.9B7of 2019 and this Court} vide order dt. 10.03.2020^{directed the Investigating Officer not} to take any coercive steps^{against the petitioner hereinin} connection with^{Cr.No.9 87 of 2019. By referringto the same,} learned senior counsel^{would submit that despite the said} order of this Court, the^{InvestigatingOfficer i.e., the 4th} respondent herein has^{requestedthe Irnmigration Authorities} I to issu,u LOC against^{the petitionerherein.}

¶35

¶36

The 4th respondent has filed counter^affidavit wherein he has specifically stated that basing on the evidence and merits of investigation, prima facie case was established against the petitioner and that he has committed the offences alleged against him. It is also mentioned that though^the Investigating Officer has tried to serve notice under^Section 41-A Cr.P.C against the petitioner herein but he could^not serve the said notice on him as he is not staying in^the address mentioned in the Criminal^{Petition No.1688 of 2020.} It is also mentioned in the counter that the^{4th respondent} has requested the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,^on 27 .OI.2O2O to send^proposals to^{the Authoritiesconcernedto} issue LOC against the petitioner herein.^{Accordingly, LOC} has been issued against the petitioner^{vide proceedings} dt.2o.O 1.2021 in Letter/ Memo^{Ncr.01 29} I^C3 I^\P I^CID-T I^2O2O and the same is valid upto 20.O4.2021^.

¶37

As per the guideiines issued by the^Central Government vide Office Memorandum^{dt.27.lQ.2OlO,the} Look Out Circular will be valid for a^{periodof one year from} the date of issue and name of the^{subject shall be} automatically removed from the LOC thereafter^{unless the} concerned agency requests for its^{renewal within a period of} one yea.r. With Effect from 01.01.2011,^{all LOCs with more} than one year validity sha1l be deemed to^{have lapsed unless} the agencies concerned specifically^{requestsBureau of} Immigration for continuation of the^{names in the LOC.}

¶38

¶39

However, this provision for automatic deletion after one year shall be applicable to the cases specifically mentioned therein.

¶40

Learned senior counsel placed reiiance on principle laid down by the Hon'b1e Apex Court in a judgment reported in Social Action Forum For Manau Adhikar And Another uersus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Othersr wherein it is held that in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of red corner notice should not be routine. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in RaJesh Sho'nnrr And Others oersus State of Uttar Pradesh And on ^no1ns7z, the very same principle.

¶41

The above stated facts would reveal that the petitioner herein is accused in Cr.No.987 of 2019. Vide order dt.10.03.2020, this Court directed the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner herein. As per the counter aflidavit filed by the 4tr' respondent, the Investigating Officer has compieted investigation and filed charge sheet in the matter. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that there is no mention about the efforts made by the Investigating Olficer to serve notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on the petitioner herein. There is no mention about tlq said facts in the entire charge sheet. However, as per the

¶42

(20 r8) t0 scc 443 (20r8) t0 scc 472

¶43

¶44

counter filed by the 4rh respondent, he has requested the Commissioner of Police to issue LOC against the petitioner herein. The Hon'ble Apex Court rn the above cited^judgments categorically held that Look Out Circular cannot issued as a matter of routine where the offence is under Section 498-4 Cr.P.C. The name of the persons will be automatically removed from Look Out Circular after completion of one year. in the event of continuation of the same, the authorities have to make a specific request with regard to the same by mentioning the reasons. In the present case, there is no mention about the date on u,hich the LOC was issued against the petitioner herein. The 4th respondent has mentioned that the LOC is valid tlll 20.04.2021, The counter is silent with regard to the date on ri hich it li,as issued to the petitioner herein.

¶45

Learned senior counsel n,ould submlt that the petitioner resident of USA at present, intending to come to lndia and LOC is coming in his r,vay and there is every possibility of Police apprehending him in Airport itself.

¶46

Considering the said aspects, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner herein under the guise of pendency of LOC issued against the him vide proceedings dt.20.01.2021 tn Letter/Memo.No.0129/C3 llPlCID-T 12020 and the 1"t and 2"d respondents are further directed not to interdict the petitioner

¶47

)

¶48

herein on the ground of pendency of the said LOC proceedings issued against him in Cr.No.9g7 of 2019.

¶49

1 1. As stated above, the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and fired charge sheet. Therefore, the respondents authorities are directed to consider the said LOC issued against the petitioner herein in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Union of India vide Office Memorandum dt.27.1O.2O1O and take action in accordance with the same. They have to make a specific request with reasons for continuation of the said LOC.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shail stand closed.

¶51

SD/. K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶52

To,

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54