MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to withdraw the lookout circular issued against this petitioner in connection with the Crime No. 5 of 2018 on the file of the second respondent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, who is none other than the wife of the first accused, the second respondent registered a case in Crime No. 5 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 494, 376(1), 406, 498(A)(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sections 11(1) and 12 of Protection of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as against five accused persons, in which the petitioner is arrayed as fourth accused.

(3.) After completion of investigation final report has been filed and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl. S.C. No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 494, 495, 496, 498(A)(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and Sections, 8, 14(4) of POCSO Act and Section 67 of IT Act r/w Sections 106 and 109 of I.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner is a brother of the first accused. Since there is a family dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, she made somay allegations as against all the family members and falsely implicated the petitioner as an accused. Even according to the defacto complainant, the petitioner's house was used by the first accused and at the time of occurrence he was not in India, he resided at Singapour. When he returned to India, he obtained anticipatory bail before the trial Court on condition that the petitioner shall surrender his passport and subsequently, in Crl.M.P. No. 416 of 2019, the condition was relaxed on condition that the petitioner has to appear before the trial Court on all necessary hearings till the disposal of the case. Immediately, on the date of registration of F.I.R, itself viz., 23.06.2018, the impugned look out circular was issued by the first respondent. Thereafter, he returned to India and also obtained anticipatory bail before the trial Court and now, because of the pendency of look out circular he is not able to move outside the India. Though the entire condition imposed on him was relaxed by the trial Court and also returned the passport to the petitioner, he is not able to go abroad due to his avocation. Therefore, he sent a representation to the first respondent to withdraw the look out circular issued by the first respondent and after receipt of the same, the first respondent is keeping the same without passing any orders.