A woman has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a direction to the police to initiate the process for issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against her husband, a France-based working professional accused of cruelty and dowry harassment.

The wife contends that her husband remains in India only pending reissuance of his allegedly lost passport and that his departure would prejudice the ongoing investigation.

Advocate Angad Kamath mentioned the matter yesterday before Justice Anant Ramananth Hegde. The matter is likely to be taken up next week.

The plea challenges an October 8 order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court rejecting her application under Section 175(3) read with Section 94 BNSS, seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to request issuance of an LOC and intimate the Regional Passport Officer about the pending criminal case.

"A Look Out Circular opened on the direction sought can be deleted the day this Petition fails; the departure of Accused No. 1 cannot be undone by any order thereafter," the plea states.

The couple married in November 2022. On September 30, the wife lodged a complaint alleging physical, mental and economic cruelty, unlawful demands for money and retention of her wedding gold. An FIR was registered under Sections 85, 352 and 351(2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the plea, the husband ordinarily resides in France, where he has a valid residence permit, an indefinite-term employment contract and an apartment. He arrived in India on August 23 and had a confirmed return flight for October 1, but did not board it. He subsequently reported his passport lost.

The wife argues that if the passport is genuinely lost, the accused could obtain a fresh one within days under the Tatkal scheme and leave India. If the loss is not genuine, he could leave at any time, she submits.

She further argues that the Magistrate wrongly looked for evidence that the accused had already attempted to leave, absconded or evaded investigation, whereas the relevant test is the prospective likelihood of his departure.

"A test that can be satisfied only after the accused has left is no test at all. A measure whose entire purpose is prevention cannot be made to wait for the event it exists to prevent," the plea states.

The plea also alleges that the Magistrate failed to consider documents showing the husband's French residence, employment and confirmed travel plans.

The petitioner has clarified that she seeks only an LOC action preventing the husband from leaving India and informing the originator, and not his detention or custody.

She has therefore sought setting aside of the CMM's order and a direction to the Investigating Officer to request an LOC against her husband, limited to preventing him from leaving India.