Dismissed

Sri P. Pramod Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2021WP/7134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought the continuation of a Look Out Circular and arrest to prevent respondents from leaving abroad in a private property dispute where the investigation was already completed. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the investigation concluded, no proceedings pending, and the LOC continuation violated Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs and related miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Sri P. Pramod Kumar Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7134 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri P. Pramod Kumar, S/o. Sri P. Ramana, aged about^{32 years} Occ^business, Fl/o.Plot No.115 MLA Colony, Road No.12 Banjara^{Hills,Hyderabad - 500 034.-.-}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Home Deoartment. Secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶13

Th6 Director General of Poiice,^{Telangana state, Lakdikapul,Hyderabad.}

¶14

The Commissioner of^{Police, Hydera6ad city, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad.}

¶15

Joint Commissioner of^{Police, Detective Department, CCS, Hyderabad'}

¶16

The Joint Director, lmmigration^{Branch (lB), Ministryof HomeAffairs Government} of lndia, Block-8, East^{RlK.Puram Sector-|,New-Delhi- 110066'}

¶17

The Station House^{Officer, BanjaraHillsPolice Station, Hyderabad'}

¶18

Sri M. Chandrasekhar^{Reddy. S/o. Sri Mamidi VenkatReddyaged about 65} J"ars. Occ, business Rto.#-4947,^{Cafe Coral Drive Dallas,Texas,U S A}

¶19

e biinlimiOl Harish^{Reddy,S/o. Sri ChandrasekharReldyaged about 41 years'} - Oi". busi,ness No.# 4947, Cafe Coral Drive Dallas' Texas, U S A'

¶20

5;i. vl. Si;dh,^{nloov, wlb. Sri MamidiHarish Reddvaged^about 40 vears'occ'} - Ousinest Rlo.# 4947:Cafe Coral Drive Dallas, Texas, U S'A

¶21

...RES'ONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Artrcle^{226 ol lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be- pleased} i; ;;., an order or^{Direction, more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the respondent No.2 of giving instructionsto his} subordinates to^{wiihdraw/recallideleteLook Out Circularissued againstthe} i".pono"nt. No.7 to^{9, vide C.No.146/LSC/C6S-DDtHYDl2020 daled 1310712020 ln} relation to the case^{in Crime No.366/2020of the office of the respondentNo G for} the offences^{punishableunder Section s 420, 406, 506 readwith Section 34 of} lndian^penal iode,^{1860, and also giving instructions not to arrestthe respondents} r.ro.z to 9, as illegal,^{arbitrary, hign hinded,violative of provisions of different} statutes and^{coniequentlydirect- the respondentsNo.2 to 6 to arrest the} respondentsNo.Ttogaspartofinvestigation,.questionthemandnottorecallthe said Look Out Circular.d^{aied13lO7l2O2Othereby preventingthe respondentsNo.7} to^g rronr running away^{by evading arrest and defeatingthe process of investigation} and^{prosecution,in the interestof justice}

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto. pass} an oroe|. directing^{the respondents No.2 to 6 nof to issue any letter or circular or} memo or^{proceedings,".5rting /deleting/withdrawingthe} !99k-O-tJ..9l9ll1t^it:'"d ug;i".i*,;^{respondintsNo.i"tog, vid-e c.no.t46lLoc/ccS-DD/HYD/2020dated} 13tO7l2o2o in^{relation to ihe case in crime No.366/20200f the office of the} i*p".O"r,t tlo.6^{for oftences punishable under Sections 420} '⁴⁰⁶ '^{506 read with} s-"Jt.. i+ of^{lndianpenal code,1860, and also directtherespondentsNo.2 to 6 to} 'S as part of investigation, pending disposal of the arrest the respondents^f.fo.i-to present writ^{petition,in the interestof justice}

IANO:2O 2021

Between:

M. Chandrashekar Reddy, s/o.^{M.venkatReddy aged about 65 years, occ. business} Ryo.^ptot No.219, Road No.10C,^{MLA& MP Colony' JubileeHills, Hyderabad.}

¶29

.......Petitioner/ Respondent^{No 7}

¶30

And

¶31

1 P. Pramod Kumar, S/o. P.Ramana, Fyo.Plot No.l15^{MLA Colony, Road No 12} Baniara Hills, Hyderabad^- 500 034.

¶32

...'ET,T'ONER

¶33

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

The Director General of Police, Telangana state, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Joint Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, CCS, Hyderabad.

¶37

The Joint Director, lmmigration Branch (lB), Ministry of Home Affairs,

¶38

Government of lndia, Block-8, East R.K.Puram Sector-|, New Delhi.

¶39

The Station House Officer, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶40

Mamidi Harish Reddy, S/o. Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy aged about 41 years, Occ. business No. 4947, Cafe Coral Drive Dallas Texas, U.S.A.

¶41

Mamidi Sindhu Reddy, W/o. Mamidi Harish Reddy aged about 40 years, Occ. business No. 4947, Cafe Coral Drive Dallas Texas, U.S.A. (the Respondent Nos'B & 9 are profam'o'lli{tJaroNDENTS/

¶42

RES'.NDENTs

¶43

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 dismiss the Writ Petition with costs by vacating the interim order in W.P. No 7134 of 2021 dated 24103t2021 in the interest of^justice

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6 : AGP FOR HOME

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS FOR

¶47

SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No 5: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARA RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶49

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶51

WRIT PETITION No.7134 oF 2O2L

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

This Writ Petition is filed to declare action of respondent^{No.2 of} giving instructions to his subordinates to withdraw/recall/ delete Look Out Circular issued against the^{respondentNos.7 to 9,vide} C.No. 146/LOCICCS-DD/HYD /2O2O,^{dated13.07.2020 in relationto} the case in Cr.No.366 of 2O2O^{of the office of the respondent No'6 for} the offences under Sections^{42O, 406 and 506 readwith Section 34 of} the IPC and also^{giving instructionsnot to arrest the respondent} Nos.7 to 9, as illegal^{and consequently directthe respondent Nos'2 to} 6 to arrest the respondent^{Nos.7to 9 as part of investigation, question} themandnottorecallLookoutCircular(forshort,.LoCJdated 13.O7.2O2O, thereby^{preventing the respondentNos'7 to 9 from} running away by^{evading arrestand defeating the process of} investigation and Prosecution'

¶54

Heard M/s^{ShyamS.Agarawal, learned counsel for the} petitioner, Sri Vedula^{Srinivas, counsel appearingfor Sri K'Pradeep} Reddy, counsel^{appearing for respondent Nos'7to 9 and the learned} Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Home, and perused the record'}

¶55

A perusdl^{of the material wouldrevealthat there are disputes} between the^{petitioner hereinand 7s respondent with regard to} purchase of property^{i.e. H.No'8-3 -231lW-64admeasuring5O0} sq.yards along^{with 10,320 sq'feetof constructed area in Women's} Cooperative^{HousingSociety Limited,Jubilee Hills' The said property} belongs to Jyothi^{Rani. She offeredto sell the said propertyfor total} sale consideration^{of Rs.4,50,00,000/-' The petitioner and the 7ft} respondent^{agreed to purchasethe same' Accordingly'the 7h} respondent^{who is in USA paid Rs. 1.5O,oo,o0o/. to the petitioner}

¶56

¶57

herein. Thereafter, according to the 7tl, respondent, the^petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1.50,00,000/ - and he has paid 1,50,O0,O00/- of excess sale consideration to the said Jyothi Rani. Thus, there are disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondents with regard to the purchase of the said property and also for doing liquor business in the said property. The lollowing cases are pending between them.

¶58

	Complainant	Crime numberandSection of1aw	NameofPolice Station.
i	P.PromodKumar	366oI2O2OunderSections 420,406and506read with 34ofIPC	Banjara Hills,
2	P.PromodI(umar	297ol2O2O UnderSections448 and506 ofIPC	Jubilee Hills,
3	P.PramodKumar	640 ol2O79 UnderSections307,448and 506ofIPC	Jubilee Hills
4	SandeepJa-tn	42Oof2O79, UnderSections406,42Oa$d 506IPC	Jubilee Hills
5	Smt. Poojitha	Cr.No.768 of2017 UnderSections42O,468 and 471 ofIPC	Jubilee Hills

¶59

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, some of the cases were already closed and some of the cases were ended in compromise. Even then the said 5 more cases were transferred to CBCID for conducting Investigation in violation of the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. The cases which were already closed cannot be transferred for further investigation. However, it is relevant to note that the said transfer proceedings were under challenge in a separate petition and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition.

¶60

On the complaint iodged by the petitioner herein, p.S. Banjara Hills, registered a case in cr.No.366 of 2o2o for the offences under Sections 420,406 and 506 read with 34 of the IpC against the respondent Nos.7 to 9 on 0g.06.2020. As part of investigation, LOC

¶61

¶62

was issued against the unofficial respondents herein. According to 7tn respondent, he is permanent resident of USA and he is a citizen of USA. His passport is also issued at USA and he used to visit Hyderabad occasionally. According to him, he has many relatives in Hyderabad and entire State of Terangana. He has arrived at RGI Airport, Hyderabad from USA on 2O.O9.2O2O. The Immigration authorities, RGI Airport, have informed 7th respondent that there is Look Out notice isisued and pending against him and he was sent Jubilee Hills Police station directly. There he came to know about the pendency of the above said crime. According to him, though the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against him are 7 years and below 7 years, the Investigating Officer has to necessarily invoke the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.p.C., the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366/2020 did not follow the said procedure. He has not issued any notice under Section 41_A of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the action of the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 of 2020 is in violation of the said Section 4 1-A of the Cr.p.C. and also guidelines issued by the Hon'bie Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihart. The LOC was also issued against 7th respondent herein which is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. Hence, guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Air Force, Union of India from time to time.

¶63

In the counter filed by 7th respondent, it is specifically contended that 8th and 9fi respondents are in USA. 7rh respondent is in Hyderabad. Due to the pendency of the above said crime and also Look Out Circular issued against him, he is not in.a position to leave India to USA. The Police, Banjara Hills have detained him in the said case under the guise of issuance ofLook Out notice. '1zor+y^{8 scc zz:}

¶64

¶65

It is also specifically contended by 7s respondent in the counter that the petitioner herein has approached Lokayukta and he has obtained an order dated 01.04.2021 wherein the Lokayrrkta directed the Police officials to arrest 7s respondent, seized his passport. The Police were further directed to produce the petitioner before the Lokayukta along with report on OZ .O4.2O2I.

¶66

According to him, the Lokayukta is not having such power to direct the Police to arrest 7m respondent, seize his passport and produce before the Lokay'ukta. According to him, said order dated o1.o4.2o21 is illegal. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.8708 of 2O2l before this Court, wherein the Division bench vide order dated 06.04.2021 suspended the said order dated O1.O4.2O21 passed by the Lokay,ukta. In a petirion vide I.A.No. 1 of 2027 in W.P.No.8708 of 2O2L, the Division Bench, referring ro the principle laid down by the Fur Bench of this court in R.G.sunir Reddy vs. the A.p. Lokayukta [(2015) 6 ALD 302] wherein it was held that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to inter se private disputes between the parties. Relying on the said principle, a Division Bench has granted suspension of the order dated 01 .04.202 1 passed by Lokayukta.

¶67

A perusal of the material would reveal that the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 ot 2O2O has filed a final report on 0l .06.202 1 on consideration of the statements of the witnesses recorded and documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation.

¶68

According to the Investigating Ofl1cer, a notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner herein has received and acknowledged the said notice. If at all the petitioner is having any grievance, he has to file a protest petition or an applicalion before the Court concerned.

¶69

¶70

In view of the said fact that the Investigating Oflicer has already completed investigation, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.366 of 2020, a -direction sought by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to arrest the respondent Nos.7 to 9 as part of investigation, has become infructuous. The only issue falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to issuance and continuation of LOC.

¶71

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (lmmigration Section) in supercession of its earlier guidelines have issued guidelines for issuance of LOCs and maintenance of the same in respect of Indian citizens and Foreigners vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 . The said guidelines which are relevant are extracted below:-

¶72

The LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BOI from the Originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted automatically. Originating Agency must keep reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on^quarter).y and annual basis^and submit the proposals to delete the LOC, if aly, immediately after such a review. The BOI should contact the LOC Originators through normal channels as well as through the online^portal.

¶73

Look Out notice is valid for one^year from the date of^its issuance. If continuation on Look Out notice is required^beyondone year, there should be specific request with specilic reasons^fromthe originator of the said LOC. The custodian^{i.e. Immigration Authorities} will consider the said request and the^{notice and will continuethe} said LOC.

¶74

In the present case as^{stated above, the Investigating} Officer has already^{completed investigationand filed final report} treating it as false.. A^{notice dated 01 .06.2021 intimatingthe same} was also served on the^{complainantand the same was acknowledged} by him. A^perusal of^{the recordwouldrevealthat the petitionerherein} has not filed any^{protestpetition and he has not filed anyspecific}

¶75

¶76

application before the learned Magistrate. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confirmed the said fact. The contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is 7fr respondent who is in India is due and ready to pa)' an amount of Rs. 1,60,O0,000/ - to the petitioner herein. There are specific allegations against 7th respondent in Cr.No.366 of 20,20.In the event of withdrawing the LOC, there is every possibility of 7th respondent leaving to USA in which event, the Investigating Officer may not be in a position to conclude investigation. As stated above, the Investigating Oflicer has already completed investigation and filed linal report on 01.06.2021. Now learned counsei for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is taking steps to file protest petition and also an application before the learned Magistrate seeking fair and transparent investigation. So far, the petitioner herein has not liled any such application, On filing such protest petition, the learned Magistrate has to follow procedure laid down under the Cr.p.C. and if the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that the cognizance has to be taken, then to pass an order of cognizance and then learned Magistrate will issue summons to the 7tt respondent herein. Therefore, as on today there are no proceedings much less criminal proceedings pending against 7th respondent equally against the ge and 9tr, respondents who are in USA at present. According to this Court, continuation of the Look Out Circular against the respondent Nos.7 to 9 is in violation of the said guidelines issued by the Union or India vide office Memorandum dated 22.O2.2027.

¶77

As stated above, there are disputes between the petitioner and 7m respondent with regard to the purchase of the above said property and starting liquor business in the said property. There are financial transactions between them. According td the petitioner, 7rh

¶78

¶79

respondent has to pay Rs. 1.60,0 O,OOO I - to him. According to 7rh respondent, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 1 .85,0 O,OO,OOO / _ to him. Thus, there are disputes which are private in nature between the petitioner and 7th respondent. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in the present Writ petition to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to arrest unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 as part of investigation, question them and not to recall LOC dated lg.OZ.2O2O thereby preventing the respondent Nos.7 to 9 from running away by evading arrest and defeating the process of investigation and prosecution, does not arise. As stated above at the cost of repetition, the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 of 2020 has already completed investigation and filed final report. As on today, the petitioner has not filed any protest petition and he has not filed any application before the learned Magistrate seeking fair and transparent^{investigation} since according to him, the Investigating Officer^{has not conducted} investigation in a fair and transparent^{manner. There are no} proceedings, much less crime^{proceedingsagainstthe respondent} Nos.7 to 9. Therefore, continuation^{on Look Out Circular is in} violation of the^{guidelinesissued by the Ministryof HomeAffairs' vide} Oflicial Memorandum,^dated22.02 '2021 '^{Therefore'the petitioner} herein is not entitled^{for any relief much less relief sought in the Writ} Petition

¶80

l6.Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thewritpetitionisdevoidof merits and^{is liable to be dismissed'}

¶81