LOC Cases Judgments India.

LOC Cases Judgments India.( Look Out Circular Notice)

"The alleged incident reported by complainant had taken place around 12.30 p.m., the FIR was lodged at 4.00 pm when the police post is at the corner of the departure building. The four and half hours difference in lodging of FIR shows that the FIR was lodged after a considerable long time with a design to deposit passport of the petitioner with the police so late that the passport of the petitioner was not returned to the petitioner. This is clear from the subsequent events as the petitioner was not returned his passport by police and his LoC was opened by the police. This case reflects that the police was acting under some influence. Even thereafter when petitioner asked for return of passport to the police, the police refused to return it on the ground that it was part of the case property. Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 5 of 8 8. It is settled law that the Court should refrain from quashing FIR on the ground that allegations made in FIR were false. However, when FIR is lodged with mala fide motives to wreck vengeance, the Courts have interfered
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: July 12, 2010

Date of Order: 9th August, 2010

+ Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009

% 09.08.2010 Alok Kumar ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Anwesh Madhukar,

and Mr. Rajesh Samanotra, Advocate

Versus

State & Anr. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Jayant K. Sud & Mr. Atul Sahi, Advocates

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. JUDGMENT

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport registered against the petitioner under Section 354/506 IPC.

2. The complainant (respondent no.2 herein) got this FIR registered stating therein that she was in 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner for more than 05 years and was involved with him physically, emotionally and mentally. The petitioner had promised to marry her as soon as possible. Few days back (from date of registration of FIR) she learnt that petitioner was getting married to someone else, so she came to IGI airport to remind him of his promises and refresh memories (as he was leaving India). Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 1 of 8 The petitioner told her to solve the matter and took her to visitors' lounge where she started arguing with her. In the meantime he went to washroom and gave his passport to the complainant to keep in safe custody. While coming from toilet he was bit angry and pushed her at visitors' lounge of IGI airport outside the toilet, started abusing her and saying that he would kill her. She (complainant) was trying to make him calm but he suddenly became violent and started hitting her. He pulled her with her breast and punched her at her head, face and neck. Many people came to her rescue but he punched her on her breast. He got a cab and went out of scene but while running he forgot his passport with her. The time of occurrence of incident is shown as 1.00 pm on 18th October, 2007 and the time of registration of FIR is shown as 4.00 pm.

3. The complainant had also lodged another FIR against the petitioner under Section 376 IPC wherein she made following allegations:

6. In the month of September, 2004 he invited me to visit him in London. During that stay in London in his house 16, Narine Grove, Dulwich Village, London SP 24, 9PU we

became intimate with each other and also had physical

relations, but only after he promised and assured that he will marry me after his divorce has taken place with his first wife, from whom he had a son.

7. In this way we kept on meeting in Delhi in London and had physical relations and every time he kept on promising and assured me that we will get married as soon as his divorce will be through.

x x x x x

15. I got suspicious and went to IGI International Airport at around 11.00-11.30 am on 18th October and found Mr. Alok Kumar holding hands of a lady, whose name I came to know later as Ms. Amrita Das R/o Sector 41, Noida and Mr. Alok Kumar was having his arm around her waist.

Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 2 of 8

16. On my confronting him, he sent away that lady and

reacted violently with me and also misbehaved and

physically assaulted me, all the facts of the incident have been reported by me in my complaint in Police Station IGI Airport on the very same day, on the basis of my complaint a case under Section 354/506 IPC was registered against Mr. Alok Kumar (a copy of the FIR is enclosed herewith for ready reference).

4. The petitioner's contention is that on 18th October, 2007 he had come to IGI Airport as he was a solicitor in London and was returning back to London. He had not denied about live-in relationship with the complainant but had stated that his parents did not agree to this marriage because of certain reasons. He was to catch flight of Virgin Atlantic Airlines to London and he reached airport around 12.05 pm with his fiancée and was about to enter departure building when complainant called him from behind and asked him to talk for about five minutes. He agreed to talk and while talking she snatched his passport from his shirt pocket and told that she would not return the passport unless he accompanied her and solemnized marriage with her in a temple forthwith. He told her that he had to report at check-in counter latest by 12.35 pm. The complainant after taking her passport went to ladies toilet and did not come out till 12.45 pm, he missed his flight. After coming out from toilet she told him that she had torn away his passport and flushed it. Complainant also started screaming and shouting at him that she would not allow him to marry another woman. Many people were looking at them. She left the place in a scooter and told him to come to her sister's house. He went to her sister's house kept waiting there but she did not come there. Thereafter he learnt about lodging of this FIR.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the allegations made by the complainant about molesting her were preposterous and the FIR was lodged Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 3 of 8 with mala fide intention to prevent the petitioner from going to London where petitioner was practicing. The complainant subsequently lodged another FIR under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner with the same motive.

6. From the allegations made by the complainant, it is apparent that when the complainant started 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner, the petitioner had not even divorced his previous wife though it seems was living separate from her. The complainant was having a child while the petitioner was also having a child. 'Live-in relationship' is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship, neither this relationship creates any legal bond between the parties. It is a contract of living together which is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time. Those, who do not want to enter into this kind of relationship of walk-in and walk-out, they enter into a relationship of marriage, where the bond between the parties has legal implications and obligations and cannot be broken by either party at will. Thus, people who chose to have 'live-in relationship' cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between married man and unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man.

7. It is admitted case of the complainant that she herself came to IGI International Airport when she learnt that the petitioner was going back to London and was about to marry someone else and it is complainant's own case that she could not tolerate this and wanted to remind the petitioner of good old days and promises. She subsequently lodged an FIR under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner. These facts make it abundantly clear that sole Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 4 of 8 design of the complaint was to prevent the petitioner from leaving India because petitioner had decided to walk out of the live-in relationship between the parties. This is clear from the sequence of events stated by the complainant in her compliant. She in her complaint under Section 354/506 IPC had not stated as to at what time she reached the airport but in her subsequent FIR she had given time of her reaching at the airport at 11.30 a.m. Obviously, she had reached airport well in advance knowing the timing of the flight. It seems the quarrel had taken place when the petitioner was to enter the departure building as there is no visitors' lounge at IGI Airport (International) and the visitors have to stay outside the departure building where taxis and cars drop the passengers who have to catch flight. There are several gates at the departure building and each gate is manned by security persons, no one can enter the departure building without an air-ticket and a passport or without a security pass. The police post is at one corner of the departure building itself and police station is downstairs near arrival building. The alleged incident reported by complainant had taken place around 12.30 p.m., the FIR was lodged at 4.00 pm when the police post is at the corner of the departure building. The four and half hours difference in lodging of FIR shows that the FIR was lodged after a considerable long time with a design to deposit passport of the petitioner with the police so late that the passport of the petitioner was not returned to the petitioner. This is clear from the subsequent events as the petitioner was not returned his passport by police and his LoC was opened by the police. This case reflects that the police was acting under some influence. Even thereafter when petitioner asked for return of passport to the police, the police refused to return it on the ground that it was part of the case property.

Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 5 of 8

8. It is settled law that the Court should refrain from quashing FIR on the ground that allegations made in FIR were false. However, when FIR is lodged with mala fide motives to wreck vengeance, the Courts have interfered as an exceptional matter and quashed the FIRs. In M/s Eicher Tractors Limited & Ors. v. Harihar Singh & Anr. 2009(1) JCC 260, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa2002 (1) JCC 214, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426 and Madhavrao J. Scindhia v. Sambhajirao C. Angre 1988 SCC (Crl.) 234, Supreme Court held that where allegations made in an FIR or complaint were so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion, this was sufficient ground for quashing the FIR. The Apex Court also held that where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and person grudge, the FIR can be quashed.

9. In the present case, motive of the complainant is writ large in her two complaints. She had entered into live-in relationship knowing fully well that the petitioner was not even divorced at that time. She being an educated lady, already once married, was not a naïve as not to know the realty of live-in relationship. It cannot be thought that she was not aware that live-in relationship was not a marriage but it was a relationship of convenience where two parties decide to enjoy company of each other at will and may leave each other at will. However, despite entering into 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner, she could not tolerate that petitioner should marry someone else and when the petitioner was about to leave India with his Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 6 of 8 fiancée and was at the airport, she went to the airport with the sole motive, which is clear from the sequence of events, to prevent petitioner from flying out from India and to teach him a lesson. She had been lived with the petitioner in London. She knew that the petitioner was working in London. She enacted the events in such a manner that the petitioner could not get hold of his passport for considerable long time and could not leave India for that period. She made allegations of rape against the petitioner.

10. This Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the rape case lodged by the complainant observed as under:

7. The facts of the case as narrated in two FIRs show that there was admittedly a live-in relationship between the Petitioner and the complainant for more than five years. The petitioner found that he could not go ahead with the marriage although at one point of time the parties had proposed to marry each other. The circumstances narrated preclude an automatic inference on absence of that consent of that complainant. Such conclusion would have to be preceded by a careful examination of events that transpired during the five years when the live-in relationship subsisted and during which according to the complainant she underwent an

abortion as well. Prima facie it appears to this Court, on the basis of existing averments in the FIR that it would be unsafe to infer an absence of consent of the complainant; which is an essential ingredient of the offence of rape. The Court is also unable to discern parity of the facts in Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and the instant case. There the prosecutrix was between 15 years and 17 years living in a village and right from the beginning she refused to

participate in the act but the accused kept on persisting and persuading her. The fact that the police took four months to register the second FIR is also a pointer to the difficulty in early inferring the offence of rape in these circumstances."

11. I consider that the FIR No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport was got registered against the petitioner out of malice in order to wreck vengeance on the petitioner because petitioner refused to continue live-in relationship with Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 7 of 8 the complainant, after due deliberations. The incident is of 12.30 pm (around) FIR's registration time is 4.00 pm, MLC of complainant was done at 7.15 pm showing no external injuries on her body. The allegations that accused petitioner, despite his fiancée being there handed over his passport to her for safe custody are preposterous. It is not her case that he was wearing clothes with no pockets. There is no reason a man would hand over his passport to a woman who had come to airport only to quarrel with him.

12. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I consider that it is a fit case where FIR should be quashed to prevent the misuse of criminal justice system for personal vengeance of a partner of 'live-in relationship'. The petition is allowed. FIR No No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport is hereby quashed. August 09, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn

Crl.M.C.No. 299/2009 Alok Kumar v. State & Anr. Page 8 of 8

LOC in sec.498-A-IPC cases in India.

LOC in sec.498-A-IPC cases in India.

"At the time that an LOC was issued against the Petitioner No. 1

at the instance of the NCW, no FIR had been registered. That was

done on 11th August 2008. The Delhi Police then requested on 15 th

April 2008 to issue an LOC. Later, on the directions issued on 16th

April 2008 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, who

granted the Petitioners anticipatory bail conditional upon their not

leaving the country, the LOC was withdrawn on 22nd April 2008.

3. In the circumstances, the present petition was filed on 10 th July

2009 praying for the following reliefs:

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 2 of 15 "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to expunge the endorsement "off loaded (criminal complaint)" on the Passport of the Petitioner No. 1;

(b) To direct an enquiry or investigation into the illegal, wrongful and malafide conduct of the officials of the CAW, NCW, FRRO and DCW and Respondents No. 8 to 10 and to ascertain and fix the responsibility and liability and punish the wrongdoers found guilty; (c) To grant compensation to the Petitioners in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, or as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to be paid by the

Respondents jointly and severally;

(d) Award costs to the Petitioners; and

(e) Any other/further relief this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners, in the interest of justice."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

37

W.P.(C) 10180/2009

VIKRAM SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Abhay Singh with

Ms. Yasmin Zafar, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Atul Nanda with

Ms. Sugandha, Advocate for UOI.

Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate for R-2, 5 to 7.

Ms. Aparna Bhat with

Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate

for R-3 & 8.

Ms. Veena Goswami, Advocate for R-4.

Ms. Masha Brar, Advocate for

Mr. Sunil Mittal, Advocate for R- 9 & 10.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the order? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? Yes

ORDER

26.07.2010

1. The background to the petition is that Respondent No. 10 who is

the wife of Petitioner No.1, and daughter-in-law of Petitioners 2

and 3, filed a complaint on 15th March 2008 with the Crime Against

Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging commission of

acts of cruelty by them attracting the provision of S.498-A IPC and

the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 28th March 2008 she also filed a

complaint with the National Commission of Women (NCW),

Respondent No.3 herein. The Petitioners state that on receiving a

telephonic summons from the Project Coordinator, Respondent No.

8, on 31st March 2008 they went to the office of the NCW on 1 st Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 1 of 15 April 2008 where, they allege, they were spoken to rudely by

Respondent No.8. On 8th April 2008, as Petitioner No.1 was on his

way to Dubai, he was "off-loaded‟ at the IGI Airport, and detained

by the officials of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office

(„FRRO‟). The Petitioners allege that this was done at the instance

of Respondent No.8 who wrote a letter to the DCP, FRRO who then

issued a Look-out Circular („LOC‟) on the basis of which Petitioner

No.1 was „off -loaded‟ and detained at the IGI Airport on 8th April

2008. It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 was "made to stand in

solitary confinement in a toilet, causing untold harassment,

humiliation and infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed

under the Constitution of India. His passport was stamped with the

remarks „Off loaded-deported due to criminal complaint‟ albeit

there was no criminal case pending against him nor any FIR was

registered. He was released only after intervention by his solicitor."

2. At the time that an LOC was issued against the Petitioner No. 1

at the instance of the NCW, no FIR had been registered. That was

done on 11th August 2008. The Delhi Police then requested on 15 th

April 2008 to issue an LOC. Later, on the directions issued on 16th

April 2008 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, who

granted the Petitioners anticipatory bail conditional upon their not

leaving the country, the LOC was withdrawn on 22nd April 2008.

3. In the circumstances, the present petition was filed on 10 th July

2009 praying for the following reliefs:

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 2 of 15 "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to expunge the endorsement "off loaded (criminal complaint)" on the Passport of the Petitioner No. 1;

(b) To direct an enquiry or investigation into the illegal, wrongful and malafide conduct of the officials of the CAW, NCW, FRRO and DCW and Respondents No. 8 to 10 and to ascertain and fix the responsibility and liability and punish the wrongdoers found guilty; (c) To grant compensation to the Petitioners in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, or as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to be paid by the

Respondents jointly and severally;

(d) Award costs to the Petitioners; and

(e) Any other/further relief this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners, in the interest of justice."

4. On 5th May 2010 this Court passed the following order:

"1. The National Commission for Women (NCW) wrote a letter the Foreigners Registration Regional Office (FRRO) on 31st March 2008 (which letter was received by the FRRO on 1st April 2008) asking for the opening of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner No.1. The reason for this as explained by the NCW is that the complainant expressed a great sense of urgency and the apprehension that Petitioner No.1 might flee the country thus frustrating the mediation process before the NCW. According to the NCW, a telephonic call was made by its officer to the Petitioner No.3 who expressed her inability to appear before the NCW. This then triggered off the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 3 of 15 aforementioned letter from the NCW to the FRRO. It is not in dispute that acting on the above letter of the NCW, the FRRO promptly issued an LOC and

Petitioner No.1 who had boarded a flight to Dubai was offloaded with a direction to report to the NCW.

2. The legal basis for the above action is traced to the powers vested for the NCW under Section 10 (4) of the National Commission for Women Act 1990. That provision reads as under:

"10 (4). The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in clause (a) or sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and, in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed."

3. The question that arises is whether while exercising the power of a civil court the NCW could ask for an LOC to be issued against a person who is to appear before it.

4. In its counter affidavit the FRRO has placed reliance upon a circular dated 5th September 1979 issued by the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 4 of 15 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which states that such LOCs are issued to check the arrival/departure of foreigners and Indians "whose arrival/departure has been banned by the concerned authorities". The "concerned authorities" are stated to include "the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Customs and Income Tax Department, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, Interol, Regional Passport Officers, Police Authorities in various States etc."

5. On instructions from SI Sanjeev attached to the FRRO, counsel for the FRRO submits that there is no further amendment to the aforementioned circular dated 5th September 1979. It is, therefore, not clear on what basis the FRRO could have simply acted on a letter from the NCW and issued the LOC in the instant case. It prima facie appears that tribunals and commissions which exercise only powers of the civil court were not intended to be included in the list of "concerned authorities" which the above circular dated 5th September 1979 talks of. However, without further clarifications from the MHA on this aspect it will not be possible for this Court to take a final view on the legality of the action of the NCW in the instant case.

6. Therefore, this Court directs the impleadment of Union of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs through its Secretary as a party Respondent. Amended memo of parties be filed within one week.

7. Notice will go to the newly added Respondent. The MHA will file an affidavit indicating whether the system of having LOCs issued continues to be governed by the aforementioned circular dated 5th September 1979; whether there have been subsequent Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 5 of 15 amendments to the said circular; whether there are any detailed instructions/guidelines on the procedure to be followed for issuing an LOC and whether there are instructions/guidelines for the guidance of the various „concerned authorities‟ about the circumstances in which and procedure they should follow while making requests for issuance of LOCs. An affidavit be filed by a senior level officer of the MHA within a period of four weeks. Preferably the deponent of the said affidavit should be present in the Court on the next date of hearing for clarifications.

8. An affidavit will also be filed by the Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, New Delhi (Respondent No.5) explaining the procedure it adopts where it makes requests, as it has done in the instant case, for issuance of LOC. It may be mentioned here apart from the MHA, the Delhi Police also made a separate request for issuance of the LOCs against the Petitioners which was thereafter withdrawn within a few days. The affidavit to be filed by the Delhi Police will deal with the contention of the petitioners that for no apparent reason their case was transferred from the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) to the Anti Extortion Cell.

9. List on 20th July 2010. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police within five days.

10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties."

5. Pursuant to the above order, two affidavits were filed, one by the

Delhi Police dated 13th July 2010 and the other by the Ministry of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 6 of 15 Home Affairs („MHA‟) dated 16th July 2010.

6. In the affidavit filed by the MHA it is stated that there is no legal

definition of an LOC. It is then stated:

"yet, it has a definite statutory legal backing in the form of already enshrined enabling provisions in the Cr.P.C. such as Section-37 read with Section 41(1), Section 441 read with Explanation to Section-446. A comprehensive legal mandate has been provided in the procedural law of the country to cover the stage of both investigation as well as trial respectively in the realm of criminal jurisprudence. Practically, LOC is interpreted as a communication received from an authorised Govt. agency with reference to a person who is wanted by that agency for fulfillment of a legal requirement, to secure arrest of person evading arrest, to nab proclaimed offender, to facilitate court proceeding by securing presence of under trials who are on bail. LOC is opened at the instance of a competent authority authorized to do so only after examining the fact that the person concerned is either a wanted or a suspect."

7. Reference is then made to the background in which specific

amendments were made to the Passports Act 1967 on 23rd October

2001 introducing Sections 10A and 10B. Section 10A gives power

to a „designated officer‟ to suspend a passport or order a passport to

be invalid for four weeks. It may be extended till proceedings under

Section 10 are concluded. Section 10B states that "every intimation

given by the Central Government or the designated officer, before

the commencement of the Passports (Amendment) Act 2002 to any Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 7 of 15 immigration authority at an airport or any other point of

embarkation or immigration, restricting or in any manner

prohibiting the departure from India of any holder of the passport or

travel document under sub-section (3) of Section 10, shall be

deemed to be an order under sub-section (1) of Section 10A and

such order shall continue to be in force for a period of three months

from the date of commencement of the Passports (Amendment)

Act, 2002, or the date of giving such intimation, whichever is later."

8. As regards the procedure for opening an LOC, reference is made

to the MHA circulated dated 5th September 1979. It is stated that:

"Courts also open LOCs on various legal matters. LOCs are based on the originator‟s request who sent the communication to various immigrations check posts on the basis of substantive/procedural laws viz IPC, Cr.P.C., Custom Act, Income Tax Act, NDPS Act, etc. All these communications are related to accused/suspected persons wanted in some cases. Besides, different courts also issue these communications in the form of LOCs including LOCs against those person who evade their presence in the Court of law during the course of judicial trial."

9. It is further clear from the reply that in terms of a subsequent

O.M. dated 27th December 2000 there is a specific proforma in

which a request must be made for opening of an LOC and this

should be issued "with the approval of an officer not below the rank

of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India/Joint Secretary in

the State Government/Concerned Superintendent of Police at

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 8 of 15 district level." A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 27th

December 2000 enclosing proforma for request for opening an LOC

has also been enclosed.

10. Since the above affidavit of the MHA did not categorically state

whether statutory bodies like NCW can make a request for opening

an LOC, the MHA was asked at the hearing on 20 th July 2010 to

clarify its stand. Today, learned counsel for the Respondents

informs the Court that as of today there is no further amendment to

the existing instructions. The legal position is that statutory bodies

like NCW cannot make a request for the issuance of an LOC.

Apart from the Central Government and the State Government,

there is no other authority on whose request an LOC can be issued.

11. The other affidavit filed by Mr. Mangesh Kashyap, Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Delhi dated 13th July 2010

refers to the factual details in the present case. It appears that it was

only after an FIR was registered on 11th April 2008 that the DCP

sent a formal request in the prescribed format on 15th April 2008.

Therefore, on 8th April 2008 when the Petitioner No. 1 was detained

at the airport, there was no request by the Delhi Police for issuance

of an LOC. Clearly it is only on the basis of the LOC request made

by the NCW, which was made without any authority of law, that

the Petitioner No. 1 was off-loaded and detained.

12. Although this Court had in its order dated 5th May 2010

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 9 of 15 required the Delhi Police to deal with the contentions of the

Petitioners that "for no apparent reason their case was transferred

from the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) to the Anti-

Extortion Cell", the response on this aspect is not satisfactory. The

affidavit only states that since the complainant expressed

dissatisfaction over the conduct of the investigation by the CAW

Cell, Nanakpura and non-recovery of stridhan by Investigation

Officer, the case was transferred to Anti-Extortion Cell of the

Crime Branch for fair and impartial investigation in the case by the

orders of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. This Court fails to

understand why the case had to be transferred to the "Anti-

Extortion Cell". Be that as it may, the Commissioner of Police will

personally examine the case once again and take a fresh decision

within two weeks from today. The Petitioners and the complainant

will be informed of such decision within a week thereafter.

13. Ms. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the NCW submitted

that it was the NCW‟s stand that it has no power to make a request

for the issuance of an LOC under the existing Circulars of the

MHA. According to her, NCW has acted bonafide and made a

written request to the FRRO and since the FRRO was authorized to

issue the LOC, the NCW was acting within its powers. She added

that on receiving a complaint from a woman in distress, the NCW

attempts, in the first place, to bring about an atmosphere which is

not adversarial. It seeks to facilitate mediation between the parties.

According to her, when upon making a telephone call to the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 10 of 15 Petitioners, the co-ordinator of the NCW was informed that they

will not be willing to come to NCW‟s office, a letter was sent to the

FRRO by the co-ordinator for the issuance of an LOC.

14. In the affidavit of FRRO, which has been referred to in the

earlier order of this Court, it is stated that the LOC came to be

opened only on the request of the NCW. Clearly, neither the NCW

nor the FRRO was aware of the correct legal position as explained

in the affidavit of the MHA. A request for the issuance of an LOC

could not have emanated from the NCW. It had to come from either

the Central or the State Government and that too only in the

prescribed form and then again only by the officers of a certain

rank. In this context, while criminal courts dealing with cases of

criminal law enforcement can issue directions, which may result in

the issuance of an LOC, there is no such power vested either under

the Cr. P.C. or the Passports Act or under the MHA‟s circular, in

statutory bodies like the NCW. Being granted the powers of a civil

court for a limited purpose does not vest the NCW with the powers

of a criminal court and it has no authority as of today to make a

request for the issuance of an LOC.

15. This Court is, therefore, of the view that action of the NCW in

writing to the DCP, FRRO for the issuance of an LOC against the

Petitioner No. 1 was without the authority of law. The consequent

action of the FRRO in issuing such LOC which resulted in the

Petitioner No.1 being detained at the IGI airport on 8th April 2008

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 11 of 15 was also, therefore, illegal.

16. The question now is only for consequential relief that should be

granted. The power to suspend, even temporarily, a passport of a

citizen, the power to issue an LOC, the power to „off-load‟ a

passenger and prevent him or her from travelling are all

extraordinary powers, vested in the criminal law enforcement

agencies by the statutory law. These are powers that are required

under the law, to be exercised with caution and only by the

authorities who are empowered by law to do so and then again only

for valid reasons. Recently, in Suresh Nanda v. Union of India

2010 IV AD (Del) 53, this Court, after referring to the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1

SCC 248, observed:

"35. ...There has to be application of mind by the authority to the relevant factors that would enable it to come to the conclusion that the impounding of the passport is in the interests of the general public. And then again, in the context of the criminal case which is still under investigation, this cannot be an opinion formed at one point in time. The public interest element will vary depending on the stage of the investigation. It cannot be said that as long as the investigation is not complete, it is not in public interest to release a passport. That would be giving too wide a power to the authority."

17. In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677, a member of

the Jammu & Kashmir Legislate Assembly was detained by the

Police while on his way to attend a session of the assembly. By the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 12 of 15 time the petition filed by him challenging his detention was heard,

he had already been released. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court

examined the case and concluded that his detention was unlawful. It

then proceeded to award him compensation after observing:

"Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 3 SCR 508 and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case."

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 13 of 15

18. Therefore, as regards the illegal detention suffered by the

Petitioner No. 1 on 8th April 2008 at the instance of both the NCW

as well as the FRRO, this Court directs that the FRRO as well as the

NCW will each pay the Petitioner No.1 a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by

way of compensation within a period of four weeks from today.

The Respondent No. 1 will, if not already done, within two weeks,

make the necessary endorsement on the passport of Petitioner No. 1

expunging the earlier endorsement "off-loaded (criminal

complaint)". In the circumstances, this Court does not consider it

necessary to examine the other prayer of the Petitioners that a

further detailed investigation should be undertaken to fix

responsibility on those who may have been responsible for the

issuance of the LOC.

19. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1

submitted that in order to ensure that such incidents do not recur,

this Court should direct that further instructions/circulars should be

issued clarifying the correct legal position. This Court finds that

there are a large number of statutory commissions at the level of the

Centre and the States which perform judicial functions and are

vested with, for the purpose of conducting inquiries upon receiving

complaints, the powers of a civil court. These include the National

Human Rights Commission („NHRC‟), the NCW, the National

Commission for Protection of Children‟s Rights. These statutory

bodies, however, have not been vested with the powers of a

criminal court and do not have powers to enforce criminal law. It is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10180/2009 Page 14 of 15 for the Government of India to take a policy decision on whether it

wants to vest such statutory tribunal/commissions with criminal law

enforcement powers. Since as of today, they have no such power, it

is imperative that the MHA should issue further clarificatory

circulars or office memoranda clearly stating that the request for

issuance of LOCs cannot „emanate‟ from statutory bodies like the

NCW. If at all, such bodies should bring the necessary facts to the

notice of law enforcement agencies like the police, which will then

make the request for issuance of an LOC upon an assessment of the

situation, and strictly in terms of the procedure outlined for the

purpose. This clarification will be issued by the MHA, in

consultation with the other concerned agencies, including

representatives of the statutory bodies referred to, within a period of

12 weeks from today.

20. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

21. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master. A certified

copy be delivered to the Secretary, MHA, the Commissioner of

Police and the Chairperson, NCW forthwith.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

JULY 26, 2010

Look Out Cerculars(LOC) Meaning

LOOK OUT CIRCULARS (LOC)
25.9 The Look Out Circulars are opened to trace the absconding criminals and also to prevent
and monitor effectively the entry or exit of persons who may be required by law enforcement
authorities.
25.9.1 The basic substantive guidelines regarding the publication of the LOCs in relation
to Indian citizens issued by the MHA enunciate the following four cardinal
principles:
25.9.2 The request for opening of LOC is required to be made to all immigration Checkposts
in the country in the Official Format prescribed by the MHA.
25.9.3 The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an
Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India/Joint
Secretary in the State Government/ Superintendent of Police concerned at the
district level.
25.9.4 The originating agency must ensure that complete identifying personal particulars
of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened, are clearly mentioned
in the prescribed proforma. The LOC will not be opened for less than three
identity parameters other than name of the subject.
Page 3 of 5
25.9.5 An LOC is valid for a period of one year. However, in case the originating agency
wants to extend the validity beyond one year it can ask for the extension before
the expiry of the one year period. If no request is made for the extension of the
LOC within the stipulated period of one year, the Immigration Officer concerned is
authorized to suspend the LOC.

Advocate V.K.Singh
+91-9999318690

Look Out Cerculars(LOC) Meaning

LOOK OUT CIRCULARS (LOC)
25.9 The Look Out Circulars are opened to trace the absconding criminals and also to prevent
and monitor effectively the entry or exit of persons who may be required by law enforcement
authorities.
25.9.1 The basic substantive guidelines regarding the publication of the LOCs in relation
to Indian citizens issued by the MHA enunciate the following four cardinal
principles:
25.9.2 The request for opening of LOC is required to be made to all immigration Checkposts
in the country in the Official Format prescribed by the MHA.
25.9.3 The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an
Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India/Joint
Secretary in the State Government/ Superintendent of Police concerned at the
district level.
25.9.4 The originating agency must ensure that complete identifying personal particulars
of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened, are clearly mentioned
in the prescribed proforma. The LOC will not be opened for less than three
identity parameters other than name of the subject.
Page 3 of 5
25.9.5 An LOC is valid for a period of one year. However, in case the originating agency
wants to extend the validity beyond one year it can ask for the extension before
the expiry of the one year period. If no request is made for the extension of the
LOC within the stipulated period of one year, the Immigration Officer concerned is
authorized to suspend the LOC.

Advocate V.K.Singh
+91-9999318690