An LOC acts as a coercive measure impacting the fundamental right to travel; its issuance and continuation necessitate strict scrutiny, requiring the originating agency to demonstrate necessity and proportionality, and must be recalled if the subject cooperates with the investigation.

ORDER : 

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein in initiating and maintaining the Look Out Circular Regular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025, against the petitioner with the Immigration Authorities in connection with Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the 4th respondent police station dated 13.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, through the crime in FIR No.188 of 2025 was challenged before this Hon’ble Court and thereby preventing the petitioner at immigration authorities at entries and exit points in India from travelling abroad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and oppose to all cannons of justice consequentially, suspend the operation of the circular i.e., the Look Out Circular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 initiated by the 6th respondent upon the request of the 4th respondent in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025 forthwith…”

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner filed a case against him along with family members before the 4th respondent police station with several matrimonial allegations on 13.11.2025. After receipt of the same, the 5th respondent police registered the crime in FIR No.188 of 2025, dated 13.11.2025 for the offence under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after knowing about the registration of crime and subsequent charge sheet, he approached the Court by way of filing an application in Criminal Petition No.1325 of 2026 under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.). The 4th respondent police without application of executive mind registered the crime and also went to an extent in issuing Look Out Circular bearing No.2026403054 on 17.01.2026 by the 6th respondent after issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he approached the Court having jurisdiction at United Kingdom for dissolution of marriage and the same was pending for orders. He further would contend that the very issuance of LOC itself shows that the police are acting to the tunes of the politicians at the behest of his wife and further maintaining the LOC even after issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in the crime is highly objectionable.

4. The learned Central Government Counsel and the learned Government Pleader opposed the petition and prays to dismiss the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel and learned Government Pleader for Department of Home, and perused the material available on record.

6. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts as extracted herein under:

(1) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (15) SCC 570 : MANU/SC/0935/2013, the Apex Court at para No.13 observed as herein under:

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

(2) In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248 : MANU/SC/0133/1978, the Apex Court held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law con