Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Karnataka High Court
SHO Must Issue NOC To Travel Abroad Or Recall Existing LOC Once Criminal Proceedings Are Stayed: Karnataka High Court
|The petition before the Karnataka High Court was filed by a man who is employed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
While directing the recall of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a man working in Saudi Arabia, the Karnataka High Court has held that once the stay of criminal proceedings is granted under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Station House Officer is duty-bound to either issue the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to travel abroad or recall/keep in abeyance any existing LOC until the stay order subsists.
The petition was filed before the High Court by the petitioner, who is gainfully employed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, challenging the action of the Station House Officer in not issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) /recalling the Lookout circular (LOC) for him to travel abroad, on account of a criminal case.
The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held, “Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that once a stay of criminal proceedings is granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Station House Officer is duty-bound to either issue the NOC or recall / keep in abeyance any existing LOC, as the case may be, until the stay order subsists.”
“When the proceedings themselves are stayed, the insistence on continuation of LOC would result in unjustified interference with the petitioner’s right to carry on his profession”, it added.
Advocate Imtiaz B. represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H. represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that the criminal proceedings, insofar as they related to the petitioner, had already been stayed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Reasoning
Considering that in a catena of decisions, the co-ordinate Benches of the Court have dealt with the same issue, the Bench stated, “The co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with similar facts, has categorically held that continuation of an LOC in the face of a subsisting stay order would be arbitrary and unsustainable, as the purpose of such LOC namely, to secure the presence of the accused no longer survives. Consequently, it has been held that the investigating agency is under a corresponding obligation to recall such LOC or keep the same in abeyance.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but further proceedings pursuant to the said charge sheet stood stayed by the Court. “Therefore, the continuation of the impugned LOC or refusal to act upon the stay order by the third respondent is clearly untenable in law”, it added.
Holding that the Station House Officer, being an instrumentality of the State, is bound to give full effect to the judicial order passed by the Court and cannot act in derogation thereof, the Bench noted, “The continuation of the LOC, despite a subsisting stay order, would amount to nullifying the effect of the judicial order and cannot be countenanced.”
“Furthermore, the petitioner’s right to livelihood, particularly when he is employed abroad, is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Any administrative action that curtails such right, in the absence of a subsisting legal necessity, would be violative of constitutional guarantees”, the order read.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police to recall the LOC issued against the petitioner and keep the same in abeyance, subject to the outcome of the Criminal Petition.
Cause Title: Mohammed Ashiq v. The Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:17527)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Imtiaz B.
Respondent: Assistant Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H., CGC Samini Ganesh M, Additional Government Advocate Vikas Rojipura
.