APHC010306662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15852 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Mohammed Rafiq, S/o. Shaik Masthan, aged about 39 Years, R/o. D.No. 100/216, Viswanathapuram, Yerramukkapalli, CK Dinne Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Rep. by its Commissioner Immigration, East Block, New Delhi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, YSR (Kadapa) District 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District. 5. The Station House Officer, Women U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd pr Respondent authorities in issuing Lookout Circular (LOG) Petitioner bearing Passport No.S9847183 at the instance of the respondent No.3 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles. 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Lookout Circular(LOC) issued against the Petitioner bearing Passport NO.S9847183, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI A. RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5:GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: against the same. r APHC010306662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15852/2025 Between: 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFIQ, S/O. SHAIK MASTHAN, AGED ABOUT R/0. D.NO. 100/216, VISWANATHAPURAM, YSR (KADAPA) 39 YEARS YERRAMUKKAPALLI, CK DINNE MANDAL, DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2.THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, IMMIGRATION, EAST BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT 4.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WOMEN U/G POLICE STATION, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WOMEN U/G POLICE STATION, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of ■ s 2 y» the 2ND d Respondent authorities in issuing Lookout Circular (LOG) against the Petitioner bearing Passport No.S9847l83 at the respondent No.3 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles. 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands admeasuring Ac. 3.74 cents in survey No: 227/PI and admeasuring Ac.3.74 cents in survey No 227/P2 of Uppalur Revenue Village, Muddanur Mandal, Nandyal District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents 3 to 5, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2. The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the 2"^' respondent in issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner in connection with C.C.No.314 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise Offences, Kadapa, as illegal and arbitrary. instance of the 2. 3. In the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner, working in Saudi Arabia, has a passport bearing No.898471183 valid from 10.01.2019 to 09.01.2029 and a Visa vide No.198287126, valid up to 23.07.2025. The 3 petitioner married one Umme Ruveba on 24.04.2016. Due to the disputes, his wife filed a complaint, and the same was registered as Crime No.45/2017by the Women U/G police station, YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 420 r/w 34 of IRC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The said FIR was issued against the petitioner and his family members. The police, after investigation, filed a final report before the jurisdictional court, and the same was numbered as C.C.136 of 2018. Since the petitioner is out of India due to employment, the case was split up, and against the petitioner, C.C.No.314 of 2020 was assigned. (b) In respect of the accused 2 to 6, C.C.No.136 of 2018 was ended in acquittal on 08.02.2024. Since the petitioner could not attend the court in C.C.No.136 of 2018, NBW was issued against the petitioner on 25.01.2021. The petitioner filed a petition to recall the warrant, and the same was allowed on 28.03.2025. (c) On 10.04.2025, the petitioner booked a ticket to leave Saudi Arabia by May 2025, but the petitioner was intercepted at the Airport, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuing LOG, despite the recall of the warrant in C.C.No.314 of 2020, violates the liberty of the petitioner. The petitioner attended the Court, and copies were furnished. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that since the petitioner failed to attend the Court, an NBW was issued in C.C.No.314 of 2020, and thereafter, LOC was issued. The petitioner has to either approach the jurisdictional Court or the concerned police officer to recall the LOC. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Consideration; 6. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. N Sumer Singh Saikan vs. Assistant Director’s case in W.P.(Cri.)no.1315 of 4 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, High Court of Delhi held that LOG can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under I PC or other penal laws where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and if there is any likelihood of accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest and only in those circumstances, LOC can be opened as against the accused therein. It is trite that recourse can be had for the issue of LOC by the police only in drastic contingencies. Without following the proper procedure, issuing a LOC is bad. In W.P.No. 12687 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022 a learned single judge of this Court held as hereunder: “POINT: ....It is trite that the recourse can be had for (2015) 3 ALT 15 issue of LOC only in extreme cases where the investigating agency establishes that the accused in cognizable cases deliberately evaded arrest or not appeared despite issuing of NBW and other coercive measures and also that there was every likelihood of accused absconding from the Country so as to not to submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned Criminal Court and thereby to evade arrest / trial and other criminal proceedings. In Sumer Singh Salkan’s case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the High Court of Delhi reiterated the above aspect as to under what circumstance recourse to the LOC can be taken. 8. Be that it may, the present case is concerned, admittedly, we are not at the stage of issuing of LOC since it was already issued and pending against the petitioners. However what is germane for consideration is whether the LOC can be allowed to be continued against the petitioners when in the charge-sheet filed by the police, they gave clean chit to them. To confirm whether the police laid charge-sheet and exonerated petitioners or not, this Court through Registrar (Judicial) called for relevant information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for 7. 5 Trial of Prohibition & Excise OffIces-cum-FAC JMFC Mobile Court, Nellore. Learned magistrate vide letter dated 29.04.2022 sent the relevant information stating that in Crime No.231/2021 the Sub-Inspector of Police, DIsha Police Station, Nellore laid charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 on 6 24.09.2021 while mentioning that he found no involvement of accused Nos. 4 and 5 i.e., the petitioners herein and thereby not charge- sheeted them. Learned magistrate further intimated that the for consideration before him on charge-sheet came up 02.03.2022 and on perusal of the record he found prime facie against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 but found no incriminating case material against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the charge-sheet and hence he issued notice to de facto complainant directing before the Court on 25.04.2022 for filing her appearance objections if any. Accordingly de facto complainant appeared before the Court on 25.04.2022 and sought time for filing protest petition and hence learned magistrate extended the time till 03.06.2022.” By opening the LOG, the personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The only the circular instructions that have been issued by the to ensure that he will cooperate with 8. LOGS are respondent/police to detain a person the trial. Of late, in every case that has been registered under Section 498-A or IPG, it has become a common phenomenon for the respondent/police , without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest, in a mechanical manner, are opening, the LOGs. It is essential that the police have to open LOGs against the persons who are accused of who are involved in financial irregularities or grave offences, or the persons the offences which are against Society. In such cases, the respondent/police resort to opening the LOGs against the accused by not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOG can be issued. can 6 9. In the case at hand, the crime registered against the petitioner is under Section 498-A IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The offences are not so grave. Insofar as the other accused, the trial was conducted, and they were acquitted, and the case against the petitioner was split up since he was out of the country at that time. By opening and continuing the LOG, the personal liberty of the petitioner would be affected. It will affect the career of the petitioner. In most cases, it may end in compromise, or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. If the LOG is continued, it will be a hurdle for the petitioner to travel abroad in pursuit of his employment. Given the discussion supra, coupled with the expressions in the aforementioned orders and the facts and circumstances of the and continuing LOG against the petitioner herein is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Gourt. The 3'^'^ respondent shall recall LOG against the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall not leave the country without getting prior permission from the jurisdictional Court. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand 10. case, opening 11. closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Commissioner Immigration, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, East Block, New Delhi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, YSR (Kadapa) District 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District. 5. The Station House Officer, Women U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District. 6. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri A. Ravindra Babu (Central Govt. Counsel) Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCS to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies ssb PI HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 ORDER WP No.15852 OF 2025 ■r'V X3m <55 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS