(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the unserved Look out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in pursuance of F.I.R. No.84 of 2020, on the file of 4th respondent, which was quashed by this Court as far as it pertains to the petitioner, vide order dated 09-07-2024 in Crl.O.P.No.2876 of 2023.)

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in connection with F.I.R.No.84 of 2020 by the fourth respondent and quash the LOC permitting the petitioner to have free access to travel.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Green Card Holder and working as Chief Executive Officer in a company named “NVIDIA” at United States of America (USA). The petitioner moved to United States in the year 2005 for higher studies and later got employed and settled in USA. The petitioner used to visit India whenever it is possible to take care of his aged parents and to spend time with them. While so, a complaint dated 27.03.2019 lodged against the petitioner, his mother and others making allegation of impersonation for a transaction which took place in the year 2003 and a case in Crime No.84 of 2020 registered by the fourth respondent.

3. The complaint is that the de-facto complainant/Aariyal, Mother of one Selvavinayagam, lodged a complaint that her son was murdered by her elder son-in-law and a case was registered against him and the same is pending trial before the Sessions Court, Salem. When her son was alive, he purchased a property in Sholinganallur village and registered as Document No.1178/1994 dated 23.03.1994. The mother of Selvavinayagam applied for encumbrance certificate and found that the petitioner purchased the said property by Document No.3143/2003. On further enquiry, she found that her son-in-law Rajendran signed as a witness. Further she doubted the signature of her son. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint and a case registered against the said Rajendran and four others, in which, the petitioner shown as Accused No.5.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier filed a quash application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2876 of 2023 on the ground that Document No.3143/2003 transaction took place when the petitioner was Engineering college student and it was his mother Kaveri Hari, who purchased the property paying through pay order. This being so, almost 17 years thereafter a complaint lodged with an ulterior motive. The petitioner’s mother filed a quash application in Crl.O.P.No.11640 of 2021 and this Court, by the order dated 07.07.2022 quashed the proceedings as against her. When the petitioner’s quash application in Crl.O.P.No.2876 of 2023 was taken up for consideration, at that time the learned Government Advocate for the respondent police submitted to the Court that pursuant to the investigation in Crime No.84 of 2020, charge sheet filed in C.C.No.7129 of 2023 against two persons and the petitioner herein not arrayed as accused in the final report. The same recorded in the order dated 09.07.2024. This being so, the petitioner, when he decided to spend time with his elderly parents in Tamil Nadu, landed in Rajasthan on 08.12.2025 to attend some commitments and the petitioner arrived Rajasthan and he was detained by immigration Officers in the Airport, Rajasthan and he was detained for almost 6 hours by the immigration authorities. It was informed that LOC issued against the petitioner pursuant to F.I.R.No.84 of 2020. Thereafter explaining to them that petitioner is not an accused in the said crime number and already investigation completed, charge sheet filed, reluctantly petitioner was let go. The petitioner came to India for a limited period, he already made arrangements and he has to return to USA on 16.12.2025. When the immigration authorities informed the fourth respondent about the arrival and detention of the petitioner, the fourth respondent ought to have informed the status of the case and withdrawn the LOC, but woke up from slumber and issued a notice under Section 41-A of Cr,P.C. on the same day, i.e. on 08.12.2025 served to the petitioner’s father, who is in Chennai, directing the petitioner to appear on 10.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. for enquiry. This is nothing but a sheild to cover up act, anticipating action as per Clause 6(G) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, wherein it is stated that the legal liability of the action taken by the immigration authorities in pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating agency. He further submitted that right to travel is a fundamental right which this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated, issuance of LOC is an extreme coercive measure to prevent an accused from evading arrest or trial or not submitting to the investigating agency. In the present case, petitioner name deleted in the final report. Further even as on 08.12.2025 only 41-A notice issued confirming that there is no requirement for petitioner’s arrest or detention. The petitioner is called to give some explanation, for this reason keeping live the LOC for a closed case is improper.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that in this case the property situated in Sholinganallur village, Tambaram involves fake transaction. The Selvavinayagam purchased the property in Document No.1178/1994 who was murdered on 21.12.2014 by his brother-in-law Rajendran. The petitioner purchased the property from an impersonator. Now the petitioner states that he sold the property in Document No.9181/2019 on 06.11.2019 to one Nagendra Kumar. The petitioner’s role was considered and finding that at the time of purchase the petitioner was a college student, further sale consideration paid through bank and also considering other facts of the case, the petitioner name was dropped from the final report and now charge sheet filed against one Rajendran and Prakasam and the case is pending in C.C.No.7129 of 2023.

6. He further submitted that LOC issued at the time of investigation in Crime No.84 of 2020. The petitioner was aware about the LOC. In fact, he filed a quash petition before this Court, at that time there was no objections raised by the petitioner but when the petitioner was detained by the immigration authority it is now projected as though the petitioner is been targeted. He further submitted that on the objections raised by the petitioner, on scrutiny of the materials, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai had sent a communication in C.No.66/ACOP-CCB/Camp/LOC/2025 dated 10.12.2025 to the Assistant Director of Immigration Authority, New Delhi requesting to cancel the LOC against the petitioner. On receipt of this letter, the immigration authority deleted the LOC issued against the petitioner.

7. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section) issued a guidelines for issuance of LOC in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners. Following the circular, on the request of the originator LOC opened. Once it is opened it is uploaded in the system of Immigration Authority. It is retained there, until the originator makes a request to cancel the same. This procedure followed to ensure that no offenders escape from the clutches of law, on the request of Investigating Agency and Courts person against whom LOC issued are detained in the immigration post. Since LOC was active against the petitioner, he was detained and informed post to the originator. Now a communication received from the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and the LOC deleted against the petitioner.

8. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that earlier during investigation in Crime No.84 of 2020 LOC was issued, for some reason originator not sent a request for cancellation. Hence it was not cancelled. It is not in dispute that Crime No.84 of 2020 culminated into C.C.No.7129 of 2023 wherein two persons only arrayed as accused. The petitioner is not an accused in the charge sheet, which is recorded in Crl.O.P.No.2876 of 2023. In view of the above, the continuation of LOC is not justified. Added to it, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a communication requesting to cancel the LOC against the petitioner and BOI had cancelled the LOC issued against the petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the said communication is scanned hereunder:





Now the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner is cancelled. Now the petitioner has no obstruction and has free passage without any hindrance.

9. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.