LOC Cannot Be Sustained Where Accused Cooperates With Investigation and No Deliberate Evasion Is Established

The Petitioner, a U.S. national, sought quashing of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued on 06.12.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District.

The LOC was triggered by FIR No. 17/2021 alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC related to a 50/50 partnership business, M/s. Bliss Design India.

The Petitioner claimed the dispute was purely civil/commercial and noted she had consistently joined the investigation since becoming aware of the LOC in 2023.

Status reports filed in 2023 and 2025 confirmed the Petitioner’s cooperation and revealed that the investigation remained stalled primarily because the complainant failed to produce the firm’s balance sheets despite notices under Section 91 CrPC.

1. Whether the continued operation of the Look Out Circular against the Petitioner was legally sustainable given her cooperation with the investigation and the nature of the allegations.

2. Whether the restriction on the Petitioner’s right to travel abroad satisfied the constitutional tests of fairness and proportionality under Article 21.

The court primarily applied the criteria established in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, which mandates that an LOC is a coercive measure reserved for cases where an accused is deliberately evading arrest or trial despite coercive measures like NBWs.

It further relied on the landmark principle from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which recognizes the right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, requiring any restriction to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

The court noted the Bombay High Court's view in Showik Indrajit Chakraborty v. ASP, CBI, that LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course.

The court reasoned that the primary purpose of an LOC—to secure the presence of a person evading the law—was not met in this instance.

Evidence showed the Petitioner had been available in India since 2023 and had appeared before multiple Investigating Officers.

The court observed that the investigation had languished for over three years not due to the Petitioner's conduct, but because the complainant failed to provide necessary financial documents.

The court found no evidence that the Petitioner was a flight risk or that her travel would prejudice national economic interests.

Maintaining a coercive measure for an indefinite period during a stalled investigation was deemed an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the Petitioner's fundamental rights.

The holding established that an LOC cannot be used as a tool for indefinite restraint when the subject is cooperating and the delay is attributable to the complainant or the agency.

The relief was granted subject to the Petitioner furnishing an undertaking via affidavit to continue cooperating with the investigation and providing all relevant material/documents within her possession.