A single judge of Madras HC held as follows.
From Para 46,
S.Martin Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 Feb 2014
46.For the foregoing discussions, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Further, this Court directs the Petitioner/A2 to co-operate with the Investigating Agency in respect of Crime No.304 of 2012 by joining the investigation and to make his appearance before the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Agency is to file a charge sheet before the concerned Court in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible (since the LOC cannot be issued periodically for a indefinite period and issuance of the same cannot hang on like a Damocle’s Sword on a Person’s Head). As and when the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 either to seek the aid of Authority/Officer (based on the request made by the concerned authority), who ordered
the issuance of LOC or the trial Court where a case is pending or having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station relating to the cancellation of LOC, (provided it is in force and alive), by filing necessary petition in accordance with law. Also that, the LOC can be withdrawn by the authorities concerned, who issued the same. Indeed, the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in cancelling LOC or affirming the same is quite in tune with the jurisdiction of cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant. Also, it is open to the Petitioner/A2 to seek permission of the trial Court by projecting necessary petition for proceeding abroad setting out necessary details/particulars, like places to which he intends visiting/ travelling, the addresses of the places where he would be staying or residing and the duration, the object of visit/travel etc., if so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Other Sources :