Introduction:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a British citizen in connection with a property dispute, holding that such a measure cannot be sustained merely on the basis of apprehension without material showing that the person concerned is attempting to evade the law. Justice Sandeep Sharma ruled that there was nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had tried to evade arrest or failed to cooperate with the investigating agency or the trial court despite coercive measures. The Court consequently set aside the LOC issued in connection with FIR No. 79 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, and permitted the petitioner to travel abroad subject to specified financial safeguards and compliance with conditions imposed by the trial court.
The decision, dated September 25, 2026, arose from a dispute concerning the proposed sale and purchase of a resort and adjoining land. The petitioner, Aditya Kaushik, a British citizen, approached the High Court seeking relief against the LOC, which had restricted his ability to travel outside India. He maintained that the restriction was causing hardship because he was unable to travel abroad to visit his family. His challenge raised the question of whether an LOC could remain in force when the authorities had not produced material demonstrating that the person concerned was deliberately avoiding investigation or was likely to evade the legal process.
The criminal case originated from allegations concerning a property transaction. The complainant alleged that substantial sums had been paid to the petitioner on the basis of representations regarding the transferability of land adjoining a resort. According to the complaint, the transaction remained incomplete, giving rise to allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police registered the FIR and issued an LOC against the petitioner, citing concerns about his availability for investigation.
An LOC is an administrative mechanism used by the authorities to alert immigration agencies about a person whose movement may need to be monitored or restricted in accordance with the applicable legal framework. Depending on the circumstances and the directions issued, an LOC can result in a person being stopped at an airport or otherwise prevented from leaving the country. Although such a measure may assist investigations in appropriate cases, its consequences can be significant, particularly where the person concerned is a foreign national or has family and professional commitments abroad.
The power to issue an LOC cannot, however, be treated as an unrestricted authority to curtail international travel whenever a criminal complaint is pending. The justification for such a measure must be assessed in light of the relevant circumstances, the purpose for which it was issued and the material available to the authorities. The mere registration of an FIR does not, by itself, establish that an accused person intends to abscond or obstruct the investigation.
In the present case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court found that the authorities had not demonstrated that the petitioner had attempted to evade arrest or failed to appear before the investigating agency or trial court despite coercive measures. Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that the LOC appeared to have been issued on the basis of apprehension rather than circumstances sufficient to justify such a restriction.
The Court also considered the nature of the underlying dispute. It observed that the controversy primarily concerned a property transaction and that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been initiated to exert pressure on the parties. This assessment was relevant to the Court’s consideration of whether the continued restriction on the petitioner’s travel was justified in the circumstances.
The High Court did not, however, make the petitioner’s ability to travel entirely unconditional. Recognising the need to ensure his availability for the investigation and any subsequent court proceedings, it directed him to furnish a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) of ₹10 lakh and two local sureties of ₹2 lakh each before the trial court. His liberty to travel abroad would arise upon compliance with these conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court, along with the other applicable requirements.
The judgment highlights the need to balance legitimate investigative concerns against the liberty of an individual. It makes clear that preventive measures affecting international travel must have a factual basis and cannot be maintained indefinitely merely because the authorities apprehend that an accused person might leave the country.
Arguments of the Parties:
Arguments of the Petitioner, Aditya Kaushik:
Aditya Kaushik approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the LOC issued against him in connection with FIR No. 79 of 2025. His principal grievance was that the circular prevented him from travelling abroad despite the absence of material establishing that he had attempted to evade the investigation or avoid the legal process.
As a British citizen, the petitioner submitted that the travel restriction had a direct impact on his personal life, particularly his ability to visit his family overseas. The LOC effectively limited his freedom to leave India and subjected his international travel to restrictions arising from the criminal proceedings connected with the property transaction.
The petitioner’s challenge raised the question of whether such a restriction could be justified solely because an FIR had been registered against him. The fact that a criminal complaint was pending did not necessarily establish that he would abscond or refuse to participate in the investigation. A distinction had to be drawn between the existence of an accusation and the presence of circumstances demonstrating a genuine risk that the accused would evade the law.
The petitioner relied on the absence of material showing that he had failed to cooperate with the investigating agency or the trial court. As reflected in the High Court’s findings, there was no indication that he had attempted to evade arrest or failed to appear despite coercive measures. This absence of evidence undermined the justification for continuing a measure as restrictive as an LOC.
The nature of the underlying dispute also formed part of the context in which the petitioner sought relief. The allegations arose from a transaction involving the sale and purchase of a resort and adjoining land. The complainant alleged that money had been paid on the basis of representations about the transferability of the land, but the transaction had not been completed. The petitioner’s case, as considered by the Court, raised concerns about the use of criminal proceedings in a dispute that appeared primarily civil in character.
The petitioner’s position was that the continued LOC was disproportionate in the absence of material indicating a real attempt to evade investigation. If the authorities had concerns about his future availability, those concerns could be addressed through appropriate safeguards rather than an unjustified restriction on his ability to travel.
The relief sought was not a determination of the entire property dispute or an adjudication of the criminal allegations. Instead, the petitioner sought the quashing of the LOC, contending that the circumstances did not warrant the continuation of the travel restriction.
The High Court ultimately accepted the central basis of his challenge. It found that the LOC had been issued merely on apprehension and without circumstances justifying such action. At the same time, the Court recognised that the petitioner’s availability for future proceedings remained relevant. It therefore permitted him to travel abroad subject to the financial safeguards and other conditions specified in its order.
Arguments of the Respondent-State and Investigating Agency:
The police justified the issuance of the LOC by referring to concerns regarding the petitioner’s availability for investigation. From the investigating agency’s perspective, the circular served the purpose of ensuring that a person facing allegations in a criminal case remained accessible to the authorities while the investigation was underway.
The allegations concerned a property transaction in which, according to the complainant, substantial amounts had been paid to the petitioner based on representations regarding the transferability of adjoining land. The transaction remained incomplete, and the complainant alleged cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police had registered the FIR and were required to investigate the allegations and determine whether the available evidence supported criminal liability.
In such circumstances, the authorities could be concerned that a person residing abroad or holding foreign citizenship might leave India and become more difficult to reach for questioning or subsequent proceedings. An LOC can be used in appropriate circumstances to assist the authorities in addressing genuine concerns about a person’s availability. The State’s justification, as described in the case summary, was therefore linked to ensuring the petitioner’s availability during the investigation.
However, the existence of a criminal investigation and the possibility that an accused person may travel abroad are not necessarily sufficient, by themselves, to establish a need for an LOC. The measure must be supported by the circumstances of the individual case. A court examining such a restriction may consider whether the person has previously failed to cooperate, avoided summons, attempted to evade arrest or otherwise demonstrated an intention to frustrate the legal process.
The High Court found that the material before it did not indicate that the petitioner had attempted to evade arrest or failed to join the investigation or appear before the trial court despite coercive measures. This was a significant deficiency in the justification for maintaining the circular.
The police’s concern about availability could not substitute for evidence of conduct warranting the restriction. While the investigating agency has a legitimate responsibility to secure cooperation and ensure that proceedings are not obstructed, those objectives must be pursued through measures that are legally justified and proportionate to the circumstances.
The State’s position also had to be assessed against the nature of the underlying dispute. The High Court observed that the controversy was primarily civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been initiated to exert pressure on the parties. This did not amount to a final adjudication that the allegations were false or that no criminal offence had occurred. It was, however, relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether the travel restriction was justified on the material presented.
The conditions imposed by the Court addressed the practical concern about the petitioner’s future availability. By requiring an FDR of ₹10 lakh and two local sureties of ₹2 lakh each, the Court created financial safeguards that would operate alongside the other conditions imposed by the trial court. These requirements were intended to ensure that the petitioner remained answerable to the legal process while allowing him to exercise his liberty to travel abroad.
The decision thus recognised the investigating agency’s legitimate role without accepting that an LOC could be sustained solely on the basis of a general apprehension. The State’s concerns had to be supported by circumstances warranting such a restrictive measure.
Court’s Judgment:
Absence of Material Justifying the Look Out Circular:
Justice Sandeep Sharma allowed the petition and quashed the LOC issued against Aditya Kaushik in connection with FIR No. 79 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kandaghat. The Court’s central finding was that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had attempted to evade arrest or failed to join the investigation or appear before the trial court despite coercive measures.
The absence of such material was significant because an LOC can have serious consequences for an individual’s freedom of movement. It may prevent a person from leaving India and interfere with personal, family and professional commitments. Given the restrictive nature of the measure, the circumstances must provide an adequate basis for its issuance and continuation.
The Court found that the circular had been issued merely on the basis of apprehension. It did not identify circumstances demonstrating that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding the investigating agency or intended to frustrate the legal process. A general concern that a person might travel abroad cannot automatically justify a restriction on that person’s movement.
The distinction between a genuine risk and a speculative apprehension is central to the reasoning. Authorities may have legitimate reasons to take preventive steps where the facts demonstrate a real possibility that an accused person will evade investigation or court proceedings. But the power must be exercised on the basis of the relevant material and in accordance with the applicable framework.
In this case, the Court found no sufficient factual foundation for the LOC. The petitioner’s foreign citizenship and ability to travel abroad could not, in themselves, replace the need for circumstances warranting the restriction. Nor could the mere pendency of a criminal case automatically establish that the petitioner was likely to abscond.
The Court therefore concluded that the continued operation of the LOC was not justified and set it aside. Its decision reinforced the principle that restrictions on travel must be supported by more than a bare possibility that an accused person may become unavailable.
Nature of the Underlying Property Dispute:
The Court also considered the nature of the allegations that had led to the registration of the FIR. The complaint concerned the sale and purchase of a resort and adjoining land. The complainant alleged that substantial sums had been paid to the petitioner based on representations about the transferability of the adjoining land, but that the transaction had not been completed.
Such disputes may involve questions concerning contractual obligations, representations made during negotiations, the transfer of property and the consequences of an incomplete transaction. Depending on the evidence, a property dispute may also give rise to criminal allegations where the legal ingredients of an offence are established.
The important distinction is that every unsuccessful or disputed commercial transaction does not automatically constitute cheating. A failure to complete a transaction may have civil consequences, while criminal liability requires the prosecution to establish the elements of the offence alleged under the applicable law.
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, cited in the FIR, concerned cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The registration of a case under that provision required the investigating agency to examine the allegations and determine whether the relevant ingredients were supported by evidence. The existence of the FIR, however, did not by itself establish the petitioner’s guilt.
The High Court observed that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been initiated to exert pressure on the parties. This observation formed part of the context in which the Court assessed the justification for the LOC.
The Court’s reasoning should not be read as a final declaration that the property transaction involved no criminal offence. The decision concerned the legality of the travel restriction, not a final determination of the underlying allegations. The question before the Court was whether the LOC was justified in the circumstances, and the absence of material showing an attempt to evade the legal process weighed against its continuation.
The observation concerning the civil character of the dispute nevertheless highlights a recurring concern in property and commercial litigation: criminal law should not be used merely as leverage in a disagreement over contractual performance. Where allegations of cheating are made, the authorities must examine whether the facts disclose the necessary criminal elements rather than treating every contractual dispute as a criminal matter.
Distinction Between an FIR and the Need for Travel Restrictions:
A central implication of the ruling is that the registration of an FIR and the issuance of an LOC involve different legal considerations. An FIR records information concerning an alleged offence and may initiate a criminal investigation. An LOC, by contrast, may impose a separate practical restriction on a person’s ability to travel internationally.
The existence of the first does not automatically justify the second. A person may be named in a criminal case without having demonstrated any intention to evade the authorities. The decision to impose or maintain an LOC must therefore be assessed independently, according to the applicable rules and the facts relevant to the person’s availability.
The High Court’s finding that there was no material showing evasion was crucial to this distinction. It indicated that the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the property dispute was not, on its own, enough to sustain the travel restriction. The authorities needed circumstances justifying the particular measure they had adopted.
This approach is important because restrictions on travel can impose substantial burdens even before the underlying criminal allegations are adjudicated. A person may be prevented from meeting family members abroad, attending to personal commitments or undertaking professional travel. Where such consequences arise, the legal basis for the restriction must be examined carefully.
At the same time, the decision does not prevent authorities from issuing LOCs in appropriate cases. Where relevant material demonstrates that a person is avoiding investigation, repeatedly failing to appear or otherwise presenting a genuine risk to the legal process, the authorities may consider measures permitted by the applicable law. The point is that such measures must rest on the relevant circumstances rather than speculation alone.
The ruling therefore draws attention to the need for a reasoned relationship between the objective of securing a person’s availability and the restriction imposed. A measure intended to assist an investigation should not continue merely because it was issued at an earlier stage if the factual basis required to justify it is absent.
Protection of Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement:
The Court’s decision also engages the broader legal principle that personal liberty cannot be restricted arbitrarily. The ability to travel abroad is not entirely unrestricted, and the State may impose lawful limitations in appropriate circumstances. Nevertheless, restrictions must be supported by a valid legal basis and applied in a manner consistent with the rights of the person affected.
The LOC had prevented the petitioner, a British citizen, from travelling abroad to visit his family. The High Court considered the absence of evidence that he had attempted to evade arrest or failed to cooperate with the authorities. In those circumstances, the restriction could not be sustained merely because the police were concerned about his future availability.
The judgment reflects the need to balance individual liberty against the legitimate interests of investigation and prosecution. Courts must ensure that the adminstration of criminal justice is not obstructed, but they