VEERARAGHAVAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused in Crime No.15 of 2020 for offence under Sec. 498A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has filed this petition to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner on the request of the 3rd respondent Police.

(2.) The gist of the complaint is that on 17/2/2019, the marriage held between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in Crime No.15 of 2020 in Thirumalai Hills, Thirupathi and reception was held in Pathmavathy Mahal, Vanagaram, Chennai. During the marriage, customary Sridhana articles were presented by the family members of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the jewels and valuables kept in the joint locker at Repco Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai, wherein the defacto complainant's father is the General Manager. After the marriage, the defacto complainant continued her studies staying with her parents and the petitioner had gone to Muscat, Oman for employment. Thereafter, some misunderstanding arouse between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to demand of dowry. Later, the defacto complainant had gone to Muscat where again dispute arouse between them and she came back to India and continued to stay with her parents. On 26/1/2020, the defacto complainant sent her uncle Radhakrishnan to collect locker key to get back her jewels and valuables from the Repco Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai. On 30/1/2020, the petitioner called his father-in-law through mobile phone and threatened him and finally, he agreed to handover the locker key. The defacto complainant appeared and waited for the petitioner in the bank, but the petitioner failed to appear and failed to return the locker key. Hence, the defacto complainant gave a letter to the bank not to permit operation of the locker. Coming to know about the same, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and her family members. Hence, she lodged a complaint to the

(3.) rd respondent Police. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Site Engineer at Alldrak International Trading L.L.C at Oman from February 2016 onwards. Due to his hard work and dedication, he was promoted as Project Coordinator. After the marriage, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Due to evil advice of her parents, she lodged a complaint as though the petitioner demanded dowry. Without conducting proper enquiry, the 3rd respondent Police arrayed the petitioner and his entire family members as accused and the defacto complainant made allegations that the jewels and the valuables presented during the marriage were retained by the petitioner and his family. On registration of the case, the petitioner moved Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.No.3013 of 2021 before this Court. While the same was pending, the 3rd respondent Police made arrangement for issuance of Look Out Circular against the petitioner through the 1st respondent. On 3/2/2021, the 1st respondent wrote a letter to the 4th respondent requesting to issue Look Out Circular against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the 3rd respondent called the petitioner to appear for enquiry. The petitioner sent E-mail to the 3rd respondent explaining his situation and unavailability of flights from Oman to Chennai due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. The petitioner requested his family members to attend the enquiry and they attended enquriy twice before the 3rd respondent Police. Thereafter, the petitioner left from Oman, and he reached Trivandrum Airport on 18/2/2021, the immigration officials enquired the petitioner on the basis of the Look Out Circular and detained him in their custody and informed the detention of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, who took custody of the petitioner on 19/2/2021.