ORDER : The petitioner/accused in Crime No.15 of 2020 for offence under Section 498A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 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 17.02.2019, 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 26.01.2020, 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 30.01.2020, 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 3rd 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. 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 03.02.2021, 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 18.02.2021, 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 19.02.2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was taken to Repco Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai, where the locker was opened all jewels and valuables handed over to the defacto complainant. Later, the petitioner was arrested, immediately produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee on 20.02.2021 and thereafter, he was let out on bail. The respondents 1 to 3 having knowledge that the petitioner filed Anticipatory Bail before this Court, made arrangements for issuance of Look Out Circular projecting him as absconding accused and he attempting to flee from India. The learned counsel further submitted that to curtail the petitioner's employment in Oman, the Look Out Circular has been issued. The presence of the petitioner in Oman is very much necessary, since his position as project coordinator is indispensable. The learned counsel further submitted that to curtail the petitioner's employment in Oman, the Look Out Circular has been issued. The presence of the petitioner in Oman is very much necessary, since his position as project coordinator is indispensable. The 3rd respondent in connivance with the defacto complainant had arranged for issuance of the Look Out Circular and thereby, curtailed the movement of the petitioner. The petitioner is a lawful passport holder with travel permit and he is to travel abroad in connection with his employment. The issue between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is only a matrimonial dispute. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court time and again held that in the case of matrimonial dispute, the Investigating Agency not to be in haste and register FIR and shall take all steps to resolve the matrimonial dispute. In this case, no such steps taken by the 3rd respondent Police and the FIR registered on the same day of lodging the complaint violating the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court. Thus, issuance of the Look Out Circular as though the petitioner is an absconding accused is unwarranted. Hence, he prayed for removal of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 filed the counter and submitted that based on the complaint, a case was registered by the 3rd respondent Police in Crime No.15 of 2021, for offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused (A1 to A5) on 03.12.2020. During the course of investigation, the 3rd respondent Police examined the defacto complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 12.01.2021, a requisition letter was sent to the Bureau of Immigration (MHA) Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai for passport details of the petitioner and the report was received on 22.01.2021. He further submitted that on apprehension of arrest, all the accused filed Anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.3013 & 20938 of 2020, wherein this Court by order, dated 17.02.2021 recorded that 'the Learned counsel for the accused is directed to instructed the accused that A1 shall come to India and hand over the jewels within two weeks, till then, the respondent police shall not arrest the accused persons'. 7. On 03.02.2021, the 1st respondent sent requisition letter to the 4th respondent for opening Look out Circular against the petitioner holding passport No.M2170044. On 18.02.2021, the 3rd respondent Police received an information from the Inspector SHO, Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram about the petitioner detained based on the Look Out Circular. Hence, the 3rd respondent Police went to Thiruvananthapuram, secured accused and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamalle. Thereafter, the petitioner agreed to handover the jewels and valuables of his wife, hence taken to Repco Bank, where opened the bank locker and handed over all the jewels to defacto complainant. Thus, the 3rd respondent police conducted the investigation in a free, fair and impartial manner. The petitioner filed this direction petition seeking direction that the 1st respondent to instruct the 4th respondent to withdraw the Look Out Circular in Crime No.15 of 2020. At this stage, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor submitted that the removal of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner, would affect the investigation which is being conducted by the 3rd respondent Police. If the petitioner is permitted to travel back, he will not return back to India. Hence, the petitioner is very much necessary for investigation in this case and objected this petition. 9. Mr.D.Simon, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent produced a letter, dated 02.08.2021 of the Bureau of Immigration (MHA) Government of India, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Chennai and the same is as follows:- “Please refer to your email dated 08.07.2021 on the above mentioned subject. The 3rd respondent has not initiated any Look Out Circular against the petitioner. Immigration authorities act only on LOC requests made by the various government Law Enforcement Agencies. 2. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the Hon'ble High Court may direct the concerned government agency, under whom an enquiry/investigation may be pending against the petitioner, to take a call in this matter. 3. The Hon'ble High Court may please be informed accordingly for the dismissal of the case since the WP is devoid of merits and thus render justice.” 10. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Project Coordinator in Muscat, Oman from the year 2016. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Project Coordinator in Muscat, Oman from the year 2016. After the marriage with the defacto complainant, the petitioner continued to work in Muscat, Oman. The defacto complainant gone to Muscat and stayed with the petitioner for sometime. The main grievance in the complaint seems to be return of jewels and valuables presented during the marriage by the family members of the defacto complainant. It is the admitted case of the defacto complainant that Sridhana articles were kept in joint locker of the Repco Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai. After securing the petitioner, the 3rd respondent took him to the bank where the locker opened and jewels and valuables returned to the defacto complainant. 12. In a case of matrimonial dispute, the Hon'ble Apex Court by catena of judgments given guidelines about the manner in which matrimonial cases to be dealt. In the case of “Rajesh Sharma and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 ” the Hon'ble Apex Court issued guidelines that 'In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine. Further, impounding of passport or issuance of red corner notice should be avoided'. Admittedly, in this case, there is no allegation involving physical injuries or death. 13. From the communication of the Bureau of Immigration (MHA) Government of India, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, Chennai, dated 02.08.2021, it is seen that no Look Out Circular is pending against the petitioner with the Immigration Authorities. The 1st respondent admitted that earlier, a request for Look Out Circular was received on 03.02.2021, based on which the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and later, released on bail, as such the purpose of Look Out Circular complied and there is no restriction for the petitioner to fly in and out of India. 14. It could be seen that it is only a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed not to request any Look Out Circular against the petitioner and the 4th respondent not to impose any restriction on the movement of the petitioner in and out of India, unless it is absolutely necessary. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed not to request any Look Out Circular against the petitioner and the 4th respondent not to impose any restriction on the movement of the petitioner in and out of India, unless it is absolutely necessary. The requisition and restriction if any should be by a well reasoned one. 15. With the above observation this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 16. The petitioner's movement not to be restricted by any Look Out Circular, since he is not required for any enquiry by the Police. The 4th respondent/Immigration Authority submits that no request is made from the respondents 1 to 3 as on date seeking to issue Look Out Circular against the petitioner.