TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the look-out circular was maintainable after a prosecution complaint had been filed and cognizance taken by the Special Court; (ii) whether the petitioner should be relegated to the Special Court for seeking withdrawal of the look-out circular and permission to travel abroad.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the look-out circular was maintainable after a prosecution complaint had been filed and cognizance taken by the Special Court.
Analysis: The Court held that although its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be curtailed, the rule of self-imposed restraint applies where an equally efficacious remedy is available. Once the prosecution complaint had been filed and cognizance taken, the Special Court was seized of the matter and could examine the facts, evidence and all grounds urged by the petitioner, including any allegation of mala fides. The prior absence of a complaint had explained why the petition had earlier been entertained, but that position changed after the complaint and summoning order.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court and the petitioner was required to pursue the remedy before the Special Court.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioner should be relegated to the Special Court for seeking withdrawal of the look-out circular and permission to travel abroad.
Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that cancellation or rescission of a look-out circular is within the competence of the court where the criminal case is pending, in the same manner as the court's jurisdiction over non-bailable warrants. Since the complaint case was pending before the Special Court, and the petitioner could raise all contentions there, including permission to travel and withdrawal of the circular, there was no reason for the High Court to continue with the writ proceedings. The Court also declined to examine the challenge to the Ministry of Home Affairs office memoranda because no specific prayer had been made to quash them.
Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the Special Court to seek withdrawal of the look-out circular and travel permission.
Final Conclusion: The High Court closed the writ petition and connected applications, leaving the petitioner free to move the Special Court for appropriate reliefs concerning the look-out circular and travel.
Ratio Decidendi: Once cognizance is taken in the pending criminal complaint, the court seized of that complaint becomes the proper forum to consider withdrawal or cancellation of a look-out circular, and the High Court may decline writ intervention on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
