Telangana High Court
Sri P. Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 6 July, 2021
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.7134 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare action of respondent No.2 of giving instructions to his subordinates to withdraw/recall/delete Look Out Circular issued against the respondent Nos.7 to 9, vide C.No.146/LOC/CCS-DD/HYD/2020, dated 13.07.2020 in relation to the case in Cr.No.366 of 2020 of the office of the respondent No.6 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also giving instructions not to arrest the respondent Nos.7 to 9, as illegal and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to arrest the respondent Nos.7 to 9 as part of investigation, question them and not to recall Look Out Circular ( for short, 'LOC') dated 13.07.2020, thereby preventing the respondent Nos.7 to 9 from running away by evading arrest and defeating the process of investigation and prosecution.
2. Heard M/s Shyam S.Agarawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Srinivas, counsel appearing for Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and perused the record.
3. A perusal of the material would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner herein and 7th respondent with regard to purchase of property i.e. H.No.8-3-231/W-64 admeasuring 500 sq.yards along with 10,320 sq.feet of constructed area in Women's Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Jubilee Hills. The said property belongs to Jyothi Rani. She offered to sell the said property for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. The petitioner and the 7th respondent agreed to purchase the same. Accordingly, the 7th respondent who is in USA paid Rs.1.50,00,000/- to the petitioner 2 herein. Thereafter, according to the 7th respondent, the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.1.50,00,000/- and he has paid 1,50,00,000/- of excess sale consideration to the said Jyothi Rani. Thus, there are disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondents with regard to the purchase of the said property and also for doing liquor business in the said property. The following cases are pending between them.
Complainant Crime number and Section Name of Police
of law Station.
1 P.Promod Kumar 366 of 2020 under Sections Banjara Hills,
420,406 and 506 read with
34 of IPC
2 P.Promod Kumar 291 of 2020 Jubilee Hills,
Under Sections 448 and 506
of IPC
3 P.Pramod Kumar 640 of 2019 Jubilee Hills
Under Sections 307,448 and
506 of IPC
4 Sandeep Jain 420 of 2019, Jubilee Hills
Under Sections 406,420 and
506 IPC
5 Smt. Poojitha Cr.No.768 of 2017 Jubilee Hills
Under Sections 420,468 and
471 of IPC
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, some of the cases were already closed and some of the cases were ended in compromise. Even then the said 5 more cases were transferred to CBCID for conducting Investigation in violation of the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. The cases which were already closed cannot be transferred for further investigation. However, it is relevant to note that the said transfer proceedings were under challenge in a separate petition and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition.
5. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, P.S. Banjara Hills, registered a case in Cr.No.366 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420,406 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC against the respondent Nos.7 to 9 on 08.06.2020. As part of investigation, LOC 3 was issued against the unofficial respondents herein. According to 7th respondent, he is permanent resident of USA and he is a citizen of USA. His passport is also issued at USA and he used to visit Hyderabad occasionally. According to him, he has many relatives in Hyderabad and entire State of Telangana. He has arrived at RGI Airport, Hyderabad from USA on 20.09.2020. The Immigration authorities, RGI Airport, have informed 7th respondent that there is Look Out notice issued and pending against him and he was sent Jubilee Hills Police Station directly. There he came to know about the pendency of the above said crime. According to him, though the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against him are 7 years and below 7 years, the Investigating Officer has to necessarily invoke the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366/2020 did not follow the said procedure. He has not issued any notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the action of the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 of 2020 is in violation of the said Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and also guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. The LOC was also issued against 7th respondent herein which is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. Hence, guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Air Force, Union of India from time to time.
6. In the counter filed by 7th respondent, it is specifically contended that 8th and 9th respondents are in USA. 7th respondent is in Hyderabad. Due to the pendency of the above said crime and also Look Out Circular issued against him, he is not in a position to leave India to USA. The Police, Banjara Hills have detained him in the said case under the guise of issuance of Look Out notice. 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4
7. It is also specifically contended by 7th respondent in the counter that the petitioner herein has approached Lokayukta and he has obtained an order dated 01.04.2021 wherein the Lokayukta directed the Police officials to arrest 7th respondent, seized his passport. The Police were further directed to produce the petitioner before the Lokayukta along with report on 07.04.2021.
8. According to him, the Lokayukta is not having such power to direct the Police to arrest 7th respondent, seize his passport and produce before the Lokayukta. According to him, said order dated 01.04.2021 is illegal. Therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.8708 of 2021 before this Court, wherein the Division bench vide order dated 06.04.2021 suspended the said order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Lokayukta. In a petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.8708 of 2021, the Division Bench, referring to the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in R.G.Sunil Reddy Vs. the A.P. Lokayukta [(2015) 6 ALD 302] wherein it was held that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to inter se private disputes between the parties. Relying on the said principle, a Division Bench has granted suspension of the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by Lokayukta.
9. A perusal of the material would reveal that the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 of 2020 has filed a final report on 01.06.2021 on consideration of the statements of the witnesses recorded and documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation.
10. According to the Investigating Officer, a notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner herein has received and acknowledged the said notice. If at all the petitioner is having any grievance, he has to file a protest petition or an application before the Court concerned.
5
11. In view of the said fact that the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.366 of 2020, a direction sought by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to arrest the respondent Nos.7 to 9 as part of investigation, has become infructuous. The only issue falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to issuance and continuation of LOC.
12. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section) in supercession of its earlier guidelines have issued guidelines for issuance of LOCs and maintenance of the same in respect of Indian citizens and Foreigners vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. The said guidelines which are relevant are extracted below:-
The LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by BOI from the Originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted automatically. Originating Agency must keep reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on quarterly and annual basis and submit the proposals to delete the LOC, if any, immediately after such a review. The BOI should contact the LOC Originators through normal channels as well as through the online portal.
13. Look Out notice is valid for one year from the date of its issuance. If continuation on Look Out notice is required beyond one year, there should be specific request with specific reasons from the originator of the said LOC. The custodian i.e. Immigration Authorities will consider the said request and the notice and will continue the said LOC.
14. In the present case as stated above, the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and filed final report treating it as false. A notice dated 01.06.2021 intimating the same was also served on the complainant and the same was acknowledged by him. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein has not filed any protest petition and he has not filed any specific 6 application before the learned Magistrate. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confirmed the said fact. The contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is 7th respondent who is in India is due and ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- to the petitioner herein. There are specific allegations against 7th respondent in Cr.No.366 of 2020. In the event of withdrawing the LOC, there is every possibility of 7th respondent leaving to USA in which event, the Investigating Officer may not be in a position to conclude investigation. As stated above, the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and filed final report on 01.06.2021. Now learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is taking steps to file protest petition and also an application before the learned Magistrate seeking fair and transparent investigation. So far, the petitioner herein has not filed any such application. On filing such protest petition, the learned Magistrate has to follow procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. and if the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that the cognizance has to be taken, then to pass an order of cognizance and then learned Magistrate will issue summons to the 7th respondent herein. Therefore, as on today there are no proceedings much less criminal proceedings pending against 7th respondent equally against the 8th and 9th respondents who are in USA at present. According to this Court, continuation of the Look Out Circular against the respondent Nos.7 to 9 is in violation of the said guidelines issued by the Union of India vide Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021.
15. As stated above, there are disputes between the petitioner and 7th respondent with regard to the purchase of the above said property and starting liquor business in the said property. There are financial transactions between them. According to the petitioner, 7th 7 respondent has to pay Rs.1.60,00,000/- to him. According to 7th respondent, the petitioner has to pay Rs.1.85,00,00,000/- to him. Thus, there are disputes which are private in nature between the petitioner and 7th respondent. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to arrest unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 as part of investigation, question them and not to recall LOC dated 13.07.2020 thereby preventing the respondent Nos.7 to 9 from running away by evading arrest and defeating the process of investigation and prosecution, does not arise. As stated above at the cost of repetition, the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.366 of 2020 has already completed investigation and filed final report. As on today, the petitioner has not filed any protest petition and he has not filed any application before the learned Magistrate seeking fair and transparent investigation since according to him, the Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation in a fair and transparent manner. There are no proceedings, much less crime proceedings against the respondent Nos.7 to 9. Therefore, continuation on Look Out Circular is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Official Memorandum, dated 22.02.2021. Therefore, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief much less relief sought in the Writ Petition.
16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 06.07.2021/vvr