ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to withdraw the look out circular issued against the petitioner by considering his representation dated 15.04.2021.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent herein registered cases in Crime Nos.142 and 143 of 2021 against the petitioner. He is running a business in the name and style of 'Ameera Travels' in K.Pudur, Madurai, for the past 13 years. He used to travel Malaysia frequently. Velayutham was appointed by one Ravichandran as Cashier in Masal Wheels Hotel at Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, at the request made by this petitioner. He misappropriated a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs and escaped to India. He lodged a false complaint against the petitioner before fourth respondent herein. Upon which, a case in Crime No.142 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 406 and 402 of I.P.C., and Section 10 r/w. 24 of Immigration Act has been registered. Similarly, the employee of the petitioner by name Periyasamy also misappropriated some amount and he was terminated from employment. He also gave a false complaint before the fourth respondent herein in Crime No.143 of 2021 for the offence under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., against the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3576 and 3581 of 2021. The defacto complainant namely., Velayutham in Crime No.142 of 2021 appeared before this Court and filed joint compromise memo. On that basis, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. But the fourth respondent recommended the second respondent to issue look out circular against this petitioner. When the petitioner went to Trichy Airport to travel to Dubai for business purpose, the first respondent restrained him by stating a look out circular is pending against him. Therefore, he sent a detailed representation dated 15.04.2021 to the first respondent. Since the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard, Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents.

4. Perusal of the records as well as the from the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner is facing charge in Crime Nos.142 and 143 of 2021 on the file of the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3576 and 3581 of 2021 before this Court. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3581 of 2021, on the basis of the compromise entered between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. Since there is no serious allegation against the petitioner in Crime No.143 of 2021, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3576 of 2021 and no condition has been given in the aforesaid orders except banning the petitioner from visiting abroad. More over, it is also the contention of the petitioner herein that the petitioner's case is not covered in the look out circular issued by the first respondent. The only condition, which is now available to the petitioner is that he must appear before the concerned Court when the final report is filed. The process of investigation is not necessary insofar as Crime No.142 of 2021, pending on the file of the fourth respondent, since a compromise was arrived between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. If at all this requirement is necessary is only in Crime No.143 of 2021. The offences alleged in the said First Information Report are not grievous in nature. Hence, his presence may be required only at the time of trial. On this ground, the petitioner's liberty to go out of the country cannot be denied.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the instructions issued with regard to the issuance of look out circular. They are as under:-

"14Q: What do we mean by a look out circular(LOC)

Ans: LOC is a tool to prohibit restrict/regulate the entry, sta