logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7248 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL. OP. No. 34392 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. ALLI
Parties : Gobi @ Gopi Krishnan @ Gopala Krishnan Versus The Commissioner of Police, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Sridhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Indira, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 01-10-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to direct the respondents police withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner in Crime No.58 of 2019 on the file of the 2nd respondent police and thus render justice.)

1. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against him in Crime No.58 of 2019 on the file of the second respondent police.

2. The second respondent has registered a case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 419 and 420 IPC, alleging that the accused have cheated the de facto complainant for a sum of Rs.42,000/- in the name of obtaining a bank loan. The petitioner was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail on 21.06.2019. His passport was seized by the Investigating Officer and subsequently returned to him. The second respondent issued a Look Out Circular against the petitioner in 2019 and the same is still pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and the second respondent has filed a final report before the Court concerned and the same has been taken cognizance of. He would further submit that, as part of his professional responsibilities, the petitioner has to visit his clients in Dubai, making his travel urgent and necessary. The petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and has requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to withdraw the Look Out Circular.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that a Look Out Circular has been issued by the second respondent against the petitioner and admittedly, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken cognizance of. If the Look Out Circular is cancelled or withdrawn, the petitioner may abscond and the trial may be hampered and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner has to be dismissed.

5. Considering the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. It is admitted by both parties that a case in Crime No.58 of 2019 has been registered by the second respondent against the petitioner and four others for the offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 419 and 420 IPC, alleging that they have cheated the de facto complainant of Rs.42,000/- in the name of arranging a bank loan. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and released on bail. His passport was seized by the second respondent and thereafter returned to him. It is not denied by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that a Look Out Circular has been issued against the petitioner by the second respondent in 2019 and the same is still pending. The second respondent has completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance of by the learned Additional CCB Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in C.C.No.270 of 2025.

7. The prime contention of the petitioner is that he is working in the field of private medical insurance and loan facilitation to individuals living and working abroad and, as part of his professional responsibilities, he has to visit clients in Dubai, which makes his travel urgent and necessary.

8. In these circumstances, the petitioner has requested to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued by the second respondent, since the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and taken cognizance of. This Court is of the considered view that the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is liable to be withdrawn in the interest of justice. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

9. Considering the contention of the petitioner/accused along with the fact that he has to travel abroad due to his professional responsibilities and that he has a permanent residence in Chennai and his family is permanently residing in Chennai, this Court is of the considered view that the Look Out Circular issued by the second respondent has to be withdrawn and a direction has to be given to the second respondent accordingly. Hence, there would be no prejudice to the respondents in withdrawing the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner in Crime No.58 of 2019 on the file of the second respondent police.

11. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed with a condition that the petitioner shall inform in writing before the learned Additional CCB Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, about his proposed travel abroad and the date of his return and shall fully cooperate with the trial.
 
  CDJLawJournal