SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.N. DHINGRA, J.

Sumer Singh Salkan - Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Director and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1315 of 2008 and Criminal Ref. 1 of 2006
Decided On : 11-08-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Malavika Rajkotia and Bandan Kumar
For the Respondent: Pawan Sharma, APP, Vikas Pahwa, D.K. Sharma, SHO, P.S. Alipur and Sunil Sharma, APP.

The judgment establishes the legal framework for the issuance of Look-out-Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN), emphasizing the conditions for their issuance and the role of the concerned Court in such cases.

Headnote:

LOC and RCN - Criminal Law - Passport Act, 1967, Sections 10A and 10B, Cr.P.C. - The judgment discusses the issuance of Look-out-Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) against the petitioner, highlighting the legal provisions and procedures for their issuance. It also emphasizes the conditions for the issuance of RCN and the role of the concerned Court in such cases.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought recall of Look-out-Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) issued against him by Delhi Police and Interpol. The petitioner, a Canadian citizen, was accused of offences under Section 498A, 406, and 34 of IPC. The police issued LOC and RCN against him, alleging his involvement in the crimes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issuance of RCN was uncalled for as the offences for which the petitioner was facing trial were not extraditable. The court quashed the RCN and directed the withdrawal of LOC if the petitioner gave an undertaking for his appearance before the Court.

Issues: The issues raised in the reference included the categories of cases for seeking recourse of Lookout-Circular, the procedure for opening a Lookout-Circular, the remedy available to the person against whom such Lookout-Circular has been opened, and the role of the concerned Court in such cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recourse to LOC can be taken in cognizable offences where the accused evades arrest or trial, and the investigating officer must follow a specific procedure for opening LOC. The person against whom LOC is issued must join the investigation or satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued. The subordinate courts have jurisdiction to affirm or cancel LOC similar to NBWs.

Final Decision: The RCN issued against the petitioner was quashed, and the withdrawal of LOC was directed if the petitioner gave an undertaking for his appearance before the Court.

JUDGMENT :

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

1. By the present petition the petitioner has sought recall of Look-out-Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) issued by Delhi Police and Interpol against the petitioner alleging that LOC and RCN were issued in arbitrary and malafide exercise of power by the respondent.

2. The petitioner claimed that he was a Canadian citizen since January, 2004 and a person of Indian origin. He had married one Ms. Reema Salkan, daughter of Prof. R.S. Mann, on 24th March, 2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Infantry Hostel, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was living and working in Canada and he came to India on three weeks leave for the purpose of marriage. The marriage was settled with Ms Reema through matrimonial advertisement in newspaper. The facts reveal that wife of the petitioner was not able to join the petitioner in Canada, as difference arose between the parties in the very beginning. The petitioner alleged that he was compelled to withdraw the sponsorship made by him for his wife Reema in view of certain developments. A complaint against the petitioner and his parents and married sister was filed at Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) u/s 498A/406 IPC making various allegations. Later on, an FIR was registered on 22nd April, 2003 on the basis of this complaint. The parents and sister of petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the court. Since petitioner was in Canada, he could not be arrested by the police. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-West) wrote a letter dated 27th May, 2003 to Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for opening LOC against the petitioner. This letter, annexed with the petition, shows that Addl. DCP asked RFFO to open an LOC against the petitioner at all India basis because of FIR u/s 498A/406 of IPC, registered at Police Station-Alipur, Delhi. Later, a letter seems to have also been written to Interpol Wing of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 11th June, 2003 for opening and issuance of a Red Corner Notice and service of summons on the petitioner in Canada. In response to this letter, CBI wrote a letter to Dr. R.K. Bansal, Asstt. Commissioner of Police (ACP), Sub Div. Narela, Delhi dated 15th July, 2003 and informed ACP that summons had been forwarded to Indian High Commission in Canada and also informed that in order to bring the petitioner to Delhi, charge-sheet should be filed and Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) of arrest should be obtained against the petitioner so that extradition proceedings could be initiated. It was advised that a short self contained note be prepared and same be sent to Interpol Wing. Further documents show that the police declared the petitioner as a "Wanted" person without any process issued through the Court and opened a file No. 6/SIO/2003 (77). Asstt. Director of T.P. Section/SI Cell issued a letter to all Immigration Check Posts alerting them so that if the petitioner was detected, he should be detained and his detention should be conveyed to Shri R.S. Yadav, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police. This letter was sent to all States D.G.Ps, all Seaports and all Airports. A copy of RCN, issued against the petitioner, is on record. The RCN described the petitioner as "fugitive wanted for prosecution". A warning is there that the petitioner may be "dangerous" and "violent". The RCN had the photograph of the petitioner and particulars. In the particulars, the offences mentioned are Section 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC and maximum possible penalty has been mentioned as 10 years' imprisonment'. (This must be an invention made by ACP, as far as IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment for offences u/s 498-A & 406 of IPC is up to three years imprisonment.)

3. A notice of the petition was served upon the respondent and a status report was filed by SHO, P.S. Alipur, Delhi. In the status report it has been stated that after registration of FIR, investigation was taken up and sist
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top