$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 01, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 2196/2015 CRL.M.A.No.14470/15
RASHMI RAIKHY ANR ….. Petitioners
Through : Ms.Anandini Kumari, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY DELHI
ORS ….. Respondents
Through : Ms.Richa Kapoor, ASC.
Mr.Prashant Mendiratta, Advocate for
R4.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing of LOC (Look Out Circular) in FIR No.28/09
against them and also for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2015 of the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The writ petition is contested by the
respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file.
W.P.(C) No.2196/2015 Page 1 of 5
3. The respondent No.4 was married to Arun Handa (since
Proclaimed Offender) on 23.11.2008 at Delhi. After her marriage,
respondent No.4 went to U.K. and stayed there for some duration.
Dispute arose between the parties and respondent No.4 returned to
India. FIR No.28/2009 was lodged by her under Sections 406/498-A/34
IPC at Police Station Mian Wali, New Delhi on 22.10.2009. Upon
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the court.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is the complainant’s sister-in-
law and is married to Tarun Raikhy. The petitioner -Kabeer Handa is
complainant’s brother-in-law. The other accused persons are
complainant’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law; they are
proclaimed offenders and are British citizens.
4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were granted
anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2010 with the
condition that they shall not leave India without seeking prior
permission of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. On 07.05.2010,
the petitioners were arrested and released on bail in terms of the
anticipatory bail order. Record reveals that on several occasions
permissions were sought by the petitioners to travel abroad and the said
permissions were granted; there are no allegations of their misuse.
Record further reveals that the petitioners are regularly appearing before
the court concerned in the said proceedings.
5. The petitioners were charged for commission of offence under
Sections 406/498-A IPC. During the course of arguments, copy of the
order dated 11.12.2017 was placed on record whereby the petitioner
Kabeer Handa has been discharged in the said FIR; petitioner No.1
W.P.(C) No.2196/2015 Page 2 of 5
Rashmi Raikhy has been charged only under Section 406 IPC. The next
date of hearing before the trial court is 27.02.2018 to frame formal
charge. Apparently, the trial court has taken long time to reach the
stage of consideration of charge. During this period since 2009/2010,
the petitioners have suffered a lot due to issuance of LOC against them.
Even after discharge order on 11.12.2017, LOC against the petitioner
No.2 has not been rescinded.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently urged that
LOC against petitioner No.1 cannot be quashed as she is a British
citizen having British pass-port. She has already been granted
permission to travel abroad after seeking court’s permission. There is
every possibility of the petitioner No.1 to flee the country without
having prior permission; therefore, LOC opened against her should not
be quashed. It was further urged that petitioner No.1 is residing with the
proclaimed offenders in U.K. The petitioner No.1 has given conflicting
versions about her employment in India and British.
7. At present, the petitioner No.1 is facing trial for commission of
offence punishable under Section 406 IPC only. It was enquired from
the learned counsel for respondent No.4 as to what was the approximate
value of the articles entrusted to the petitioners which allegedly have
not been returned so far. On instructions, counsel informed that total
value of the dowry articles entrusted was approximately `80,00,000/-.
Seemingly, the dowry articles (if any) were handed over to all the
accused persons including the complainant’s husband, in-laws and not
to the petitioners alone. For the offence under Section 406 IPC, in
matrimonial dispute, issuance of LOC against the petitioners till
W.P.(C) No.2196/2015 Page 3 of 5
disposal of the case cannot be justified; the offence is not heinous in
nature.
8. In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy, E.V.R.Santosh Reddy
and Rajeshwari vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police and State represented by the Inspector of Police
MANU/TN/2308/2013, Madras High Court noted various types of
persons who could be included in the LOC:-
(i) Persons with Terrorists or Militant Links,
(ii) Belligerent Foreigners,
(iii) Foreigners previously noticed for violations of visa
conditions.
(iv) Persons required by courts in criminal/civil cases who are
absconding
(v) Absconding Offenders wanted by Police/CBI/Customs
/Central excise/ Directorate of Rev. Intelligence/other
agencies
9. Apparently, the petitioners do not fall in any of the above
categories. There are no allegations that petitioner No.1 ever absconded
and did not participate in the criminal proceedings. The petitioner No.1
is a married lady having two children. The main allegations are against
the complainant’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is urged
that the petitioner No.1 was staying separate after her marriage and had
no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the complainant with her in
laws.
10. Issuance of LOC is a serious matter as it contains full particulars
of the individual which are sent throughout the world. Peculiar facts and
W.P.(C) No.2196/2015 Page 4 of 5
circumstances of the case and due to subsequent development whereby
the petitioner No.1 was charged only under Section 406 IPC,
continuation of LOC against her can’t be considered reasonable and
justified.
11. In view of the above discussion, the concerned authorities are
directed to withdraw the LOC order issued against the petitioners.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of.
13. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the
merits of the case.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 01, 2018/sa
W.P.(C) No.2196/2015 Page 5 of 5
