ORDER : PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to withdraw the Look Out Circular as against the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.6 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent police and consequently direct the 1st respondent to communicate the order of lifting of travel restriction imposed in pursuant to above said Look Out Circular to the Immigration Offices. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the Look Out Circular in connection with the case in Crime No.6 of 2016, which was culminated into framing of charges in C.C.No.339 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 2. Heard Mrs.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.6 of 2016, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid by the investigating agency and the same is taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in C.C.No.339 of 2016. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 25.07.2016, Look Out Circular was issued and subsequently his movement abroad has been curtailed. The Look Out Circular has life span for one year and the same has not been renewed. The learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 1034 of 2019, which was filed for anticipatory bail, the petitioner has appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Look Out Circular has been issued on 25.07.2016 and thereafter, such circular has not been renewed and therefore, the same is invalid. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6595 of 2018, wherein this Court has referred a judgment passed in Arockia Jeyabalan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Mount Road, Chennai and others reported in 2014(4) Law Weekly 841. In that case, this Court had considered the validity of the lookout circular. The Regional Passport Officer, Mount Road, Chennai and others reported in 2014(4) Law Weekly 841. In that case, this Court had considered the validity of the lookout circular. It has been held thus: “The object of the Look out Circular is to ensure the presence of a person for interrogation, trial or inquiry and when the purpose of such circular is served by interrogating the person, thereafter, such circular is non-est in the eye of law. Even in this case, the petitioner was subjected to enquiry at length by the fourth respondent and therefore, keeping the look out notice in force is impermissible. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to not prevent the petitioner from proceeding to London to continue her studies and the Look Out Circular issued by the second respondent need not be enforced against the petitioner”. 7. In the case in hand, the petitioner has appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, for production of sureties pursuant to the order passed in anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 1034 of 2019. Further, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, such Look out Circular has not been renewed and therefore, the same is invalid. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the Look Out Circular dated 25.07.2016. Accordingly, the Look Out Circular dated 25.07.2016 in connection with Crime No.6 of 2016, on the file of the second respondent herein is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is at liberty to travel in and out of the country and the respondents as well as the immigration authorities shall not create any obstructions for his free movement in and out of the country. The first respondent-the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai, is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authorities. 8. Considering the fact that the case is of the year 2016, this Court directs the trial court to expedite the trial and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to extend his fullest co- operation during the trial. 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.