Abdul Basith Khan v. The State Of Telangana
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17704 OF 2016 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. With consent of the counsel appearing for both sides, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
2 . The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 6 in not withdrawing/recalling the look-out notice instructions issued against the petitioner to the Immigration Officers at various airports at India as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct them to withdraw/recall the same.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in two crimes i.e., Crime No.91 of 2015 of Madannapet Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and Crime No.295 of 2015 of Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that brother of one Smt Anees Fathima got registered Crime No.295 of 2015 alleging that the accused therein, including the husband of Smt Anees Fathima i.e., Zubair Shareef, along with other accused came to his house, abused him in filthy language and beat him with sticks. The petitioner was implicated as A.7 in the said case. Insofar as Crime No.91 of 2015 is concerned, it is said that all the accused mentioned therein abused the elder son of Anees Fathima and threatened him with dire consequences. When her son asked them not to use filthy
language, all the accused attacked her son with deadly weapons viz., knife and pushed him, due to which he fell down on window glass, resulting severe mutliple bleeding injuries. The petitioner herein was shown as A.10. The averments in the affidavit also disclose that two cases viz., Crime No.146 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Crime No.149 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC were registered against Anees Fathima and her husband.
4. The petitioner submits that he has no connection with the matrimonial disputes between Anees Fathima and her husband and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. It is said that while the petitioner was travelling to Saudi Arabia, Immigration officials at Mumbai Airport detained him on the ground that there is a departmental issue. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have obtained conditional bail. Subsequently, the condition was relaxed and there are no conditions existing as on today. It is said that by reason of look out notice, the petitioner is put to great inconvenience as he is not in a position to leave the country in search of his livelihood. It is said that on 29.05.2016 he addressed a letter to recall the look out notice by the respondents, but there is no response.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home placed on record the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3213 of 2015 stating that this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot recall the notice and the authorities concerned or the court where the criminal case is pending is the appropriate authority for recalling the notice.
6. Issue identical to the case on hand came up for
consideration before the Madras High Court in S.Martin v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and others[1], wherein it has been held that apart from approaching the Investigating Officer or the authority which has issued the circular, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Court where the case is pending, which has jurisdiction over the concerned police station seeking withdrawal or cancellation of LOC by filing necessary petition in accordance with law.
Similarly, in Sumer Singh Salkan; Court on its own motion re v. Assistant Director and others; State v. Gurnek Singh etc.[2], Delhi High Court also considered the matter in similar lines holding 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.
7. In view of the judgments referred to above and having regard to the order of this Court in W.P.No.3213 of 2015, wherein this Court also directed the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police seeking withdrawal of LOC, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the authorities concerned or the appropriate Court for withdrawal of the notice, in which event the same shall be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date:07.06.2016 INL [1] 2014 Law Suit (Madras) 250 [2] 2010 Law Suit (Delhi) 1628