APHC010431832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST 2 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22564 OF 2025 Between: Tumparthi Dinesh, S/o. Tumparthi Gowrinadh.Aged 40 years, Permenant R/o.D.No 26-131 Kalyanadurgam Road, Near Jonna Iron Papampeta, Ananthapur District, A.P And presently Working at B3,2nd floor Cossigny Ave, Quatre Bornes, Mauritius. ...Petitioner AND 1. Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home affairs. Union of India its Commissioner (immigration), Eastblock VIII, level V, Puram, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Principle Secretary Home Dept, secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi. 3. The Director General of police, DGP office, Mangalagiri Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents rep by sector 1, RK State of 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 order ,writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing LOC against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary without authority and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the LOG against the petitioner. 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 to suspend the LOC by directing the respondent No. 1 LOC and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. to cancel the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos=2 to 4: QP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: 7 APHC010431832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22564/2025 Between: 1.TUMPARTHI DINESH, S/0 TUMPARTHI GOWRINADH, AGED 40 YEARS, ROAD, NEAR JONNA IRON PAPAMPETA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, FLOOR COSSIGNY PERMENANT R/O.D.NO 26-131 KALYANADURGAM A.P AND PRESENTLY WORKING AT B3, 2ND AVE, QUATRE BORNES, MAURITIUS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS COMMESSIONER (IMMIGRATION), EASTBLOCK VIII, LEVEL V, SECTOR 1, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI . 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPT, SECRETERIATE, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI. 3.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 to issue order ,writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing LOG 2 JS.J - W.P.No.22564/2025 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary without authority and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the LOG agaTnlt h! petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this hon’L co rt deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and orders may deem fit and lA NO: 1 OF in the'aldavitTed in"“''°" circumstances stated affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the LOC by directing the respondent No.1 to cancel the LOG and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deerffi and in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME may pass such other order or proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass proper writ petition and pass 2. The Court made the following 3 % JS.J W.P.No 22564/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing LOC against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without authority and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the LOC against the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice and pass such other order orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such other order or orders...” 2. The petitioner was married to the de facto complainant on 12.10.2011, moved to Marish country in 2017, and returned to India in 2024. While so, the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint which was registered as Crime No.284 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024, for offences under Sections 85, 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 1S61 (DP Act). When the petitioner arrived at Bangalore Airport, the Immigration Authorities intercepted him and informed him about the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), directing him to appear before the 4*'^ respondent at 10:00 a.m. on 24.06.2025. The petitioner appeared before the 4**^ respondent and received a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS on 24.06.2025. or Act, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed application before the concerned Magistrate Court to recall the Look Out Circular (LOC), which was dismissed on the ground that the charge sheet had not been filed. The counsel further argues that the issuance of the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner is illegal and should be quashed. an 4. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the presence of the petitioner is required before the competent jurisdictional Court. 4 JS,J W.P.No.22564/2025 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Court as and when his presence is required and prays to quash the Look Out Circular issued against him. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan Ors\, wherein it was held as under: on the judgment of V. Asstt. Directors. 10. 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 alegation of the petitioner finds support from the fact that the punishment 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 ^Samst petitioner were of only of emotional rowre. Offence of kidnapping was given as the reasons for issuance of RON '^^ch 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 inese 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 reguest for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for guashing the RCN issued against the petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police The RCN is therefore, hereby guashed.” In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.325 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the LOC issued petitioner therein. 6. against the 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed, and the petitioner shall before the concerned Court as and when required. If the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall make appear an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court seeking permission. '2010 (6) ILR Delhi 706 5 JS,J W.P,No.22564/2025 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed, Sd/-G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR stands disposed of. No //TRUE COPY// // Sf' To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Commissioner (immigration). Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home affairs, Union of India, Eastblock VIII, level V, sector 1, RK Puram. New Delhi. 2. The Principle Secretary Home Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi. 3. The Director General of police, DGP office, Mangaiagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, 5. One CC To Sri M. Sapthagiri, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies Dept, State of Andhra Pradesh State of Visakhapatnam. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22564 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS