IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 325 OF 2025 Between: Katuru Nagaraju, S/o.Vishnuvardhana Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ; Private Work at Dubai, R/o.D.No.28-8-6/1, Vadlapudi, RH Colony, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, Disha UPS Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. Katuru Tejas Kumari, W/o.Nagaraju, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Majjivalasa Village, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not withdrawing the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the passport of the petitioner bearing No.V7851380 though the purpose of issuance of LOC is served by serving 41-A notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and r consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the Lookout Circular (LOC) against the passport of the petitioner bearing No.V7851380 forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased eased to direct the respondents to withdraw the Lookout Circular (LOC) against the passport of the petitioner bearing No.V7851380 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B. V. ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : — The Court made the following; ORDER ' APHC010003702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] / / WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 325/2025 Between: Katuru Nagaraju ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B VANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: r 2 NV,J W.P.No.325 of 2025 r ORDER:- This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief; 1. “...lo issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not withdrawing the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the passport of the petitioner bearing NO.V7851380 though the purpose of issuance of LOC is served by serving 41-A notice to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and conseguently direct the respondents to withdraw the Lookout Circular against the passport of the petitioner bearing NO.V7851380 forthwith." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 2. The resident of Visakhapatnam District, working in Dubai since 2022. petitioner applied for leave from 16.12.2024 to 25.01.2025 to visit his native place. When the petitioner reached Tiruchi Airport, Tamil Nadu on 15.12.2024, he was detained by the 2'^'^ respondent on the ground that Look Out Circular was issued against him and handed over to the 4**^ respondent Police Station. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issuance of LOC and its purported extension by the Respondents against the petitioner is not only illegal but also in blatant violation of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. He further submits that the Respondents are committed egregious violation of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2024, from which the Respondents are derive their power to open LOC. He further submits that this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex 3. 3 W.P.No.325 of 20, Court time and again holding that LOG cannot be issued for marital cases and for family issues. Hence, the impugned LOG liable is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Government Pleader for the Respondents written instructions issued by the Respondents / Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam City wherein, it stated that the petitioner continues to remain absconding and the Investigation absconding charge sheet against the petitioner on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakapatnam. In light of this, it is submitted that the LOG against the petitioner cannot be withdrawn stage, as the petitioner appearance is crucial to complete the pending procedure and trial in subject criminal case as laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and prays to dismiss the submitted the { officer filed an at this same. 5. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record. 6. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs Assistant Director’s case in W.P.(Crl.) No.1315 of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, High Court of Delhi held that LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC 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 9 4 NV,J W.P.No.325 of2025 r- that the recourse can be had for issue of LOG by the police only in drastic contingencies. Without there being any proper procedure followed, coming to conclusion to issue LOG, is bad. It is not that the accused are not cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest. In W.P.No. 12687 of 2022, dated 02.5.2022, this Court held as hereunder; “POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions. It is trite that the recourse can be had for 1 2015 SCO OnLine Hyd 816 = (2015) 3 ALT 1 5 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 LCC can be taken. 8. Be that it may, the present case is concerned, admittedly, we are not at the stage of issuing of LCC since it was already issued and pending against the petitioners. However what is germane for consideration is whether the LCC 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 W.P.No.325 of petitioners or not, this Court through Registrar (Judicial) called for relevant information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for 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 charge-sheet came up for consideration before him on 02.03.2022 and on perusal of the record he found prima facie case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 but found no incriminating material against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the charge-sheet and hence he issued notice to de facto complainant directing her appearance before the Court on 25.04.2022 for filing objections if 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.” any. 7. By virtue of opening the LOG, the personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the 1 6 NV,J W.P.No.325 of 2025 0^ respondent/police without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, in mechanical manner are opening the LOCs. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused in 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. 8. In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 506, 509 IPC and the offences are not so grave and by virtue of opening LOG, there is every chance that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOG personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of FIR for the offences under Section 498-A, 506, 509 IPC, the respondent/police if come to conclusion to open the LOG against the accused, it will affect the career of the accused. In most of the cases it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. By virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, it will be a hurdle for the petitioner herein to travel abroad. -*■ efar;.# 7 \ W.P.No.325of 2o^ 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported ^ in Sumer Singh Saikan’s case stated supra, wherein it was held thus. “In the present case, the LOC was issued against the petitioner soon after the registration of FIR. It is alleged by the petitioner that LOC was issued in view of the fact that complainant’s close relative was an IPS officer. This allegation of the petitioner finds support from the fact that the punishment WP (CrI.) No. 1315 of 2008 & CrI. R. No. 1 of 2006 Page 13 of 16 stated by the police to Interpol in respect of the offences committed has been deliberately given as 10 years while the prescribed punishment is maximum 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner’s description of being ‘violent and dangerous’ also has been added malafidly, with ulterior motive, in view of the fact that allegations against petitioner were of only of emotional torture. Offence of kidnapping was given as the reasons for issuance of RON, which on the representation of petitioner was removed. It is apparent that the LOC & RON were issued for extraneous reasons by an officer who was not authorized. The petitioner has also highlighted the difference in statements made by witnesses on different occasions. Since the matter pertaining to these offences is subjudiced, it will not be appropriate to comment on this aspect but suffice it to say that the action against the petitioner of issuing RON was uncalled for in view of the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing trial in India, is an extraditable offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 iH V ,J tis W.P.No.325 of 2025 ■ years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police. The RCN, is therefore, hereby quashed. ” r In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid case and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, opening of LOG against the petitioner herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence the LOG issued against the 9. petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to 10. costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, Disha UPS Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. One CO to Sri B. V. Anjaneyulu, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CO to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr f HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 ORDER I" 2 9 JAN 2C2o ^ . Current Section WP.No.325 of 2025 <st Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS