Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
Dasari Sudheer - Appellants
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 3213 of 2015 and W.P.M.P. No. 6711 of 2015
Decided On : 06.03.2015
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Counsel
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A – Demand of Dowry – Look out circular – Seeking the relief against Look Out Circular issued and continued thereof of the fact that the petitioner has surrendered and appeared before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition Excise, Guntur – It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is a British citizen and he got married to the proposed respondent No. 6 on 03.02.2006 at Guntur. It is stated that both of them lived together at London for and then she came back and delivered a male child – It is alleged that thereafter there is no contact between the petitioner and the 6th respondent and that the 6th respondent filed a complaint on against petitioner and his parents alleging that there was a demand for dowry in Crime before Police Station, Guntur, under Section 498-A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that at the request of the Investigating Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur addressed the concerned authorities to issue LOC against the petitioner and accordingly the Additional Director General of Police issued Meanwhile, petitioner states that he came down to India, surrendered before the Court and also obtained a bail vide Criminal Petition dated – Held, Criminal Courts jurisdiction in cancellation of LOC or upholding the same is within similar jurisdiction as to cancellation of NBW and as such said Criminal Court is fully competent to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case decision of the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Court On Its Own Motion Re v. Assistant Director and others State Law Suit 1628 dated also considers the matter in a similar manner and also reiterate that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Officer who ordered issuance of LOC or it is open for him to approach the trial Court which can rescind the LOC issued on an appropriate application made by the person concerned. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid decisions. Since no purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police for the purpose of withdrawal of LOC, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise Guntur is pending and to make appropriate application seeking withdrawal of LOC. The petitioner is also 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 –Application is disposed.
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Home and Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the proposed parties, who have filed W.P.M.P. No. 6711 of 2015. Since the proposed parties are wife and son of the petitioner and since the dispute is pending in the Courts below, they are necessary and proper parties, the application in W.P.M.P. No. 6711 of 2015 is therefore ordered.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the relief against Look Out Circular(LOC) issued and continued thereof inspite of the fact that the petitioner has surrendered and appeared before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur in C.C. No. 570 of 2014. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is a British citizen and he got married to the proposed respondent No. 6 on 03.02.2006 at Guntur. It is stated that both of them lived together at London for sometime and then she came back and delivered a male child on 19.10.2006. It is alleged that thereafter there is no contact between the petitioner and the 6th respondent and that the 6th respondent filed a complaint on 17.09.2012 against the petitioner and his parents alleging that there was a demand for dowry in Crime No. 471 of 2012 before Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, under Section 498-A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that at the request of the Investigating Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur addressed the concerned authorities to issue LOC against the petitioner and accordingly the Additional Director General of Police issued LOC on 08.01.2014. Meanwhile, petitioner states that he came down to India, surrendered before the Court and also obtained a bail vide Criminal Petition No. 2058 of 2014 dated 07.07.2014, wherein Court imposed a condition that the petitioner has to report on every Tuesday before the Station House Officer and also provide sureties. It is stated that charge sheet is now filed in the above said crime and the same is numbered as C.C. No. 570 of 2014.
3. The present writ petition came to be filed thereafter on the ground that the petitioner is now required to go to London in order to save his job, but on account of LOC the petitioner was not permitted to leave the country by the Immigration Authorities at Chatrapathi Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Petitioner has thereafter made a detailed representation dated 19.12.2014 before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, pointing out that he has already exceeded his stay in India beyond 180 days, which is the maximum permissible period and as such, he cannot remain in India and required to return to London as his salary is being withheld by his employer and that in view of the fact that the petitioner has no intention to obstruct the hearing of the cases and he has already surrendered before the Court voluntarily, requested that the LOC to be taken back. However, as no action is being taken, the present writ petition is filed. The instructions received earlier by the learned Government Pleader however show that on the basis of opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Superintendent of Police declined to take any action on the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of LOC. Since such a reason was not acceptable to this Court, the Superintendent of Police was directed to file a counter.
4. Learned Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit of the second respondent, wherein he states that the Look Out Circular dated 08.01.2014 was to expire on 07.01.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban sent a request for renewal of LOC to Additional Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad on 06.01.2015 and LOC was extended on 06.01.2015 by one more year. The counter affidavit further states that the said LOC was issued as per the circular instructions received under memorandum dated 27.10.2010 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Forei
