Allowed

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/3561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. The petitioner sought quashing of LOC alleging violation of rights. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the LOC subject to furnishing security and reporting travel details to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Look Out Circular; petitioner to furnish security of Rs. 2,00,000/- and report travel details; name from LOC to be deleted upon compliance.

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3561 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel, S/o Lewis^Emanuel, fOed^6Z Vqqp, Occ.Director E-man Group, Permanent^{Resident of Plot No-13, Lourie Ville} Estate, Gqbs North of Parklane, St. Gabarone,^{BOTSWANA,AFRICA. Local} Resident at H.No.213, Clarandale, Mudfort,^SECUNDERABAD

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . State of Telangana, rep by its^{Prirrcipal Secretary,Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh,^{Hyderabad, Telangana} 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,^{NorthZone, Hyderabad, Telangana.} 4. The Stdtion House Officer, WPS, Begumpet,^Hyderabad. 5. The Foreigners Regional Registratioh^{Officer(FRRO),} Qgreaq^{of lmmigration} (MHA). 6ovt. of^- lndia, Sardar Vallabhai Patel Biol OCR Complex, Sham'shabad, Pahadishaieef^{Road Near GMR Township (CISF Residential} Quarters) Mamidipally, Shamshabad,^T.S

¶13

6- Alina Pobja Kinny,^\7vlo Leon^{Christopher Emanuel, Age.d} -!0-^{y^ears-, Occ.} Household, Local'itesiding at^{- H.lrl,o.Plot.No.154, Flat No.202, Srinilayam'} New Vasavi colony, Kakaguda,^{Kharkhana, SECUNDERABADPermanent} Resisdent of- Kin'riy Villa, H.No.O/^{120,ChemburGoathan'MUMBAI,} MAHARASTRA-*''71

¶14

...RE''.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a wfit or order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus declaring the aotion^{of the respondents 2 and 5 in issuingand} continuing Look Out Circular against^{the petitioner in C.C. No. 8007 of 2022 (On} the file of XV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN^{MAGISTRATEAT HYDERABAD)} in Cr.l,lo.108 of 2021 P.S.WPS,^{Begurnpet, NorthZone,Secunderabad,on the} cornplaint given by the 6th Respondent^{without foltrcwingdue processof law is} wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to^{aw aM^{in violalionof principles of natural} justice consequently direct the respondents 2 and 5 to recall and delete Look^Out

¶16

Circular pending against the petition er in C.C.No. BOOT of 2C22(On the file of XV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MA GISTRATE AT HYDER,\BAD ) in Cr. No. 108 of 2021 p.S.W?S, Begumpet, No rth Zone, Secunderabad IA NO ',o F2024

¶17

petition under Se< in the affidavit fif eU in su 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated c.u* may o. pr",,"ot :,::;j m::x,I"::i'ff,i,::; Hi,, againsr the petirioner in rhe fire , ,u-ioa"n MAGT.TRATE o, ,"ral.n in cr.No.108''-JL'cHlEF METRopoLrrAN North zone, su.rnd"rrb"TABAD) d pendins disposar ";^{;;,ffi,,i;;;#,,s;,4"0"n"t,}

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. p. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY Counset for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI ,ULIMAMIDI SHASHTDHAR REDD' Counsel for the Respondent No.6:__

¶19

The Court made the fo owing: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.B HASKAR REDDY

¶22

trIRIT PETITION No.3561 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The petitioner states that the marriage of his son and respondent No.6 was performed on 29.11.2011 at Goa as per Christian rites and customs and the said marriage was registered in Mumbai on 3O.09.2011. It is also stated that due to the disputes arose between the petitioner's son and respondent No.6 after marriage, the petitioner's son instituted F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2076 on the hle of the Family Court, Secunderabad, which was dismissed on 12.O7.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's son filed a Family Court Appeal on the hle of this Court and the same is pending. The petitioner further states that pending adjudication of the matrimonial disputes between his son and respondent No.6, based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.6, a case in Crime No.1O8 of 2O2l dated 31.O7.2021 has been registered by respondent No.4 against the petitioner and his family members. It is also stated that soon after receipt of the notice issued under Section 4l-A Cr.P.C, the petitioner and his family rnembers have not only submitted explanation, but also cooperated with the investigation and after completion of the investigation, charge

¶25

¶26

. :..

¶27

sheet has been ftled and the same was taken cognisance^vide C.C.No.8OO7 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and they are regularly attending the Court.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ^petition is that despite the same, at the instance of resprtndent No.6, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have issued Look Out C)ircular^(LOC) and thereby restraining his free movement which amounts^to violati,on of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Heard iearned counsel for the^parties and^perusedthe record.

¶30

As per the Circular Memorandum datecl Ol^.O7 .2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, vide C.No.3O89 /C-3llP /CID /2019-22, whenever L,ail is^granted to the accused or whenever charge sheet is filed,^immediately the concerned officer shail address a letter to^the Commissioner lhead of Unit, who in turn shall^{addressa letter} to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC.

¶31

Admittedly, in the instant case, after issuan<:e of notice as required under Section 4 1-A Cr.P.C., the petitiorrer and other

¶32

¶33

¶34

family members^{submitted explanationand cooperatedwith the} investigation; after^{concluding the investigation, chargesheet} has been filed; the^{same has been taken cognisancevide} C.C.No.8O07 of^{2022 on the llle of XV Additional Chief} Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad; thereafter the} petitioner is regularly^{appearing beforethe concerned Court;} and no warrants^{are pending against the petitionerin the said} case as on date.^{As such, continuationof LOC againstthe} petitioner is not^{warrantedand the same is liable to be set} aside.

¶35

Accordingly, this^{Writ Petition is allowedand the LOC} issued against the^{petitioner in Crime No' lO8 of 2O2I on the irle} of Women Police^{Station,Begumpet, Hyderabad, is set aside'} subject to the^{following conditions:}

¶36

i) That the^{petitioner shall furnish securityfor an amount of} Rs.2,0O,0O0/-^{(RupeesT\ro Lakhi only), if not already} furnished as directed^{in Crl'M'P'No2I89of 2023 irt} CC.No.SOO7 of 2022, to^{the saLisfactionof t]le XV} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Nampally'} Hyderabad, within a^{period of eight (8) weeksfrom the} date of receipt of^{a copy of this order;}

¶37

ii) That the^{petitionershall furnish detailsof his travel} itinerary to the said^{Magistrate before departurefrom} India and shall^{intimatethe sameupon his arrival;'}

¶38

¶39

¶40

iii) That the petitioner shall give the derails of his stay in countries, where he intends to travel.

¶41

iv) That the petitioner shall regularly appear in C.C.No.8007 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶42

On furnishing the aforesaid securit5r by the ltetitioner, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps immediately for deletion of the name o[ the petitioner from t_he LOC. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear regularly in C.C.No.8OO7 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, the security fur:rished by him shall stand forfeited.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶44

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

SD/-AV.S. PRAS ASSIS]-ANT GI //TRUE COPY//

¶46

To,

¶47

sEcTlo OFFICER

¶48

1 2 3 4 il'ii.ffisiffi^{dit,#t:,,ffir,ffi-iHd,#i;:"*i,i'n,",} 5 ffi ili€'8xf^{tit?yi:txffp,i5fr :3i,.,q?i_s5ti_'$:ifi} shamshabad,^{pahadishareef} noao t tqar GM{ioi,i"riii'tc,rsr -" r ! vlrr rrr rrP ""j,mmisrationResidentiar 9uarters)^{IMamidlp [y, ShamshabiO,} iS6. two CCs to Gp FOR HOIr,tE ,High iourt for the State of T€,langana, at Hyderabad IOUT] One CC to SRI. P VAMSHEE.DHAR REDDY, Advocate IoF,UC] one CC to SR t.^pU L I MAM I D I SHAS Hi D-H-Ah' hEbdf ';l'ro"ate II7 [o^puc] Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:f 810312024

ORDER

,,7a) s &
l!) a* tti
..1-l
I. Q:
fj
st<br>

¶56

WP.No.3561 of 2024

¶57

ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶58

ze\A<br>o
&

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandhari Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

Poosa Eleshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Saroja Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt. Tasneem Faiyaz Bhagat Vs The State of Telangana