Court orders recall of lookout circular against businessman witness, emphasizes proper procedures

The Court directed the respondent to recall the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner, a businessman involved as a witness in the case. Despite facing travel restrictions, the petitioner cooperated in the investigation and had not been charged with any criminal offenses. The Court emphasized the need for proper procedures in issuing and recalling LOCs, noting that the petitioner's compliance and lack of criminal charges warranted the recall of the LOC. The petitioner was instructed to continue cooperating with the investigation and follow any conditions set for travel permissions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in relation to RC No.224/2017/A-001.
2. Validity of the LOC against the petitioner.
3. Compliance with legal principles in issuing the LOC.
4. Comparison with LOCs quashed for other accused.
5. Petitioner's cooperation in the investigation and travel restrictions due to the LOC.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the LOC issued against him in relation to a specific RC. The petitioner, not named in the RC, was summoned as a witness multiple times and cooperated in the investigation. The petitioner argued that the LOC, still in place against him, was unjustified as he had not been sent as an accused for trial. The petitioner, a businessman with investments in India, faced travel restrictions due to the LOC, hindering his business activities.

2. The petitioner contended that being a victim in another FIR, he had not been arrested or charged yet the LOC was opened against him without proper legal grounds. The investigating agency argued that the petitioner was required for investigation, justifying the LOC. However, the petitioner highlighted that he had traveled abroad with court permission and had not evaded arrest or failed to appear in court, meeting the criteria set by legal precedents for recalling the LOC.

3. The Court referred to legal precedents regarding the issuance and recall of LOCs, emphasizing that the investigating agency must follow specific procedures before opening an LOC. The person against whom the LOC is issued must cooperate with the investigation, surrender before the court, or demonstrate that the LOC was wrongly issued. The authority that issued the LOC or the trial court can withdraw or rescind the LOC based on the circumstances.

4. The Court noted that LOCs issued against other accused in the same RC had been quashed with conditions imposed for travel permissions and security deposits. The petitioner, being a witness in the case, argued that the LOC against him was unjustified given his cooperation and lack of criminal charges against him.

5. Considering the petitioner's compliance with the investigation, travel restrictions, and lack of criminal charges, the Court directed the respondent to recall the LOC against the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to continue cooperating in the investigation and adhere to any conditions imposed by the court when seeking permission to travel abroad. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with the order to be uploaded on the court's website.

---