Quashing unjustified Red Corner Notice & Look-out Circular: Court sets guidelines for proper issuance

The court quashed the Red Corner Notice (RCN) and Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, finding them unjustified and motivated by extraneous reasons. The court emphasized the need for proper legal basis and procedural adherence in issuing and challenging LOCs, providing guidelines for such processes. It highlighted the importance of exercising powers like LOCs and RCNs cautiously and for valid reasons, ensuring they are not misused. The judgment underscored the role of the court in overseeing cases involving LOCs and RCNs, emphasizing the need for statutory authorities to act responsibly and within legal boundaries.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recall of Look-out Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN)
2. Legal basis and procedure for issuing LOC and RCN
3. Remedies available to individuals against whom LOC or RCN is issued
4. Role of the court in cases involving LOC or RCN

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recall of Look-out Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN):

The petitioner sought the recall of LOC and RCN issued by the Delhi Police and Interpol, alleging arbitrary and malafide exercise of power by the respondent. The petitioner, a Canadian citizen of Indian origin, was implicated in a complaint filed under sections 498-A/406 IPC by his wife. Following the complaint, an FIR was registered, and LOC and RCN were issued. The petitioner argued that these were issued without proper legal basis and were motivated by extraneous reasons, including the complainant's connection to an IPS officer. The court found that the LOC and RCN were issued for extraneous reasons and quashed the RCN, stating that the offences were not extraditable, and no extradition request had been made despite knowing the petitioner's whereabouts for seven years.

2. Legal Basis and Procedure for Issuing LOC and RCN:

The judgment detailed the legal framework for issuing LOCs, referencing the Ministry of Home Affairs' Circular No. 15022/13/78-F.1 dated 5th September 1979, and subsequent Office Memorandum dated 27th December 2000. LOCs are issued to monitor or restrict the arrival/departure of individuals wanted in criminal cases. The statutory backing for LOCs includes the Passport Act, 1967 (sections 10A and 10B) and Section 41 of Cr. P.C. The procedure requires a written request from an authorized officer, and the approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India or Joint Secretary in the State Government.

For RCNs, the judgment cited Interpol's requirements, including that the offence must be extraditable, a warrant of arrest must be issued, and extradition must be requested. The court noted that the petitioner's RCN described him as "fugitive wanted for prosecution" and included exaggerated charges and descriptions, such as being "dangerous" and "violent," which were found to be malafide.

3. Remedies Available to Individuals Against Whom LOC or RCN is Issued:

The judgment outlined the remedies available to individuals against whom LOCs are issued. These include joining the investigation, surrendering before the court, or satisfying the court that the LOC was wrongly issued. The individual can also approach the officer who ordered the LOC to explain its wrongful issuance. LOCs can be withdrawn by the issuing authority or rescinded by the trial court.

4. Role of the Court in Cases Involving LOC or RCN:

The court emphasized that LOCs are coercive measures to ensure the appearance of individuals in court or before investigating agencies. The subordinate courts have jurisdiction to affirm or cancel LOCs, similar to their jurisdiction over Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs). The judgment referenced previous cases, such as Vikram Sharma & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., where the court provided guidelines for issuing LOCs and emphasized the need for statutory commissions to not misuse their power.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the LOC and RCN issued against the petitioner were not justified and were motivated by extraneous reasons. The RCN was quashed, and the court provided guidelines for issuing and challenging LOCs, emphasizing the need for proper legal basis and procedural adherence. The judgment also highlighted the extraordinary nature of powers like issuing LOCs and RCNs, which must be exercised with caution and for valid reasons.

---