APHC010441112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22449 OF 2025 Between: Salikanti Nagaiah, S/o S. Mallaiali Aged about 44 years, Occ- Software Engineer R/o H.No.1-156, Mukundqniram, Nidamanoor Mandal Naigonda district. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Krishna district 3. The Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District, Rayachoti 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District, Rayachoti 5. The Station House officer, , P.S. Rayachoty U/G Aimamayya District 6. Kalakata Hrudveena, W/o Salikanti Nagaiah, Aged about 42 years, occ- Private employee R/o NGO colony Rayadioty Town Aimamayya District. 7. The Immigration officer, Rajivgandhi Shamshabad, Hyderabad. International Airport, ...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, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in issuing Look Out circular (not served the petitioner) in connection with Crime No. 409 of 2025 dated 27-7-2025 under Section 85 BNS and Sec. 4 of DP Act on the file of 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Fundamental Rights Guanrantee Under the Constitution of India and infringed the liberty of 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 petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to withdraw the Look Out circular (not served the petitioner ) issued by the respondents 2 to 5 against the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 409 of 2025 dated 27-7-2025 under Section 85 BNS and Sec. 4 of DP Act issued by the 5‘^ respondent by permitting the petitioner to go to abroad (USA) pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.7: ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following order: APHC010441112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATH! JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22449/2025 Between: 1.SALIKANTI NAGAIAH, S/0 S. MALLAIALI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC- SOFTWARE ENGINEER R/0 H.NO 1-156, MUKUNDQNIRAM, NIDAMANOOR MANDAL NALGONDA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND I.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS SECRETARY VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTI DEPUTY SIPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTI 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , P.S. RAYACHOTY U/G AIMAMAYYA DISTRICT 4.TI It 6.KALAKATA HRUDVEENA, W/0 SALIKANTI NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE RAYADiOTY TOWN AIMAMAYYA DISTRICT. IMMIGRATION OFFICER, RAJIVGANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SHAMSHABAD, HYDERABAD. R/0 NGO COLONY T.TH'I 2 W.P.No.22449 of 2025 ^ ...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 topieased to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in issuing Look Out circular (not served the petitioner ) in connection with Crime No. 409 of 2025 dated 27-7-2025 under Section 85 BNS and Sec. 4 of DP Act the file of 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Fundamental Rights Guanrantee Under the Constitution of India and infringed the liberty of the petitioner and pass BA 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 pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to withdraw the Look Out circular (not served the petitioner) issued by the respondents 2 to 5 against die p^oner in connection with Crime No, 409 of 2025 dated 27-7-2025 under Section 85 BNS and Sec. 4 of DP Act issued by the 5* respondent by permitting the petitioner to gc to abroad (USA) pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass ; Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MOHD GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: on 3 JS, J W.P.No.22449 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief; " issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in issuing Look Out Circular (Not served to the petitioner) in connection with Crime No. 409 of 2025 dated 27.07.2025 under Section 85 BNS and Section 4 of DP Act on the file of the 5'^ respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Fundamental Rights Guaranteed Under the Constitution of India and infringed the liberty of the petitioner and pass such other order... Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent 2. Nos.1 to 5, and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner married the 6'^ respondent in 2007 and came to India on 09.06.2025. The petitioner 3. th has booked return tickets for 20.08.2025. It is also submitted that the 6 respondent lodged a report on 27.07.2025 under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the DP Act’) against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner needs to return to the USA to attend to his employment, and that his children’s school is 4. JS,J W.P.No.22449 of 2025 scheduled io reopen on 12.08.2025. Due to the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOG), the petitioner is unable to leave India. The leave obtained by the petitioner appears to have expired, and the vacation of his children also ends on 11.08.2025. The petitioner must travel back to the USA, failing which he is likely to lose his employment, and his children's education may be adversely affected. It is further submitted that the issuance of the LOG against family members in a matrimonial dispute, particularly for the offences under Section 85 of the BNS and Section 4 of the DP Act, is per se illegal and is liaole to be quashed. 5. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, on instructions, submits that based on the complaint filed by the 6'^ respondent, a case in Crime No.409 of 2025 was registered under Section 85 of the BNS and Section 4 of the DP Act at Rayachoty U/G Police Station against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘the BNSS’) was served on the petitioner on 06.08.2025, and a charge sheet was filed on 21.08.2025. The same is awaited for a calendar case (CC) number. The LOG was issued as a preventive measure and not as a punitive one. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the presence of the petitioner is required before the competent jurisdictional Court. 5 JS, J W.P. No.22449 of 2025 7. 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 prayed to quash the Look Out Circular issued against him. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16136 of 2023, wherein this Court at Para Nos.6 and 7 held as follows: "6. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs. Assistant Director’s case in W.P. (CrI.) No. 1315 of 2008 and CrI.RefNo. 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 that the recourse can be had for issue of LOC by the police only in drastic contingencies. Without there being any proper procedure followed, coming to conclusion, to issue LOC is bad. It is not that the accused is not cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest. In W.P. No. 12687 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, 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 see OnLineHyd 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 for 1 20 I w JS,J W.P.,\o.22449 of 2025 evaded arrest or not appeared despite issuing of N3W and other coercive measures and also that there was even/ likelihood oi 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 Saikan’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. Ho'wever 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 Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences-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 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 prime 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 7 JS,J W.P.N0.22449 of 2025 issued notice to de facto complainant directing her appearance before the Court on 25.04.2022 for filing 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.” 7. By virtue of opening the LOC, 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 that the 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 LOC can be issued. ” In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.325 of 2025, dated 8. 22.01.2025, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the LOC issued against the petitioner therein. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid 9. down by this Court in the aforementioned Writ Petitions, the Writ Petition is 8 JS,J W.P.No.22449 of 2025 0^^ allowed, and the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court as and when required. If the petitioner intends to leave India, he may approach the jurisdictional Court and file an appropriate application. Upon filing such an application, the jurisdictional Court shall pass an appropriate order specifying the period, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJli ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Krishna district Home Department, Secretariat Buildings 2. Pradesh, Vijayawada 3. The Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District, Rayachoti The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District, Rayachoti The Station House officer, P.S. Rayachoty U/G Aimamayya District International Airport, 4. 5. 6. The Immigration Shamshabad, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI. MOHD GULAM RASOOL, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME High Court of Andhra One CC to Additional Solicitor General Pradesh.[OPUC] officer. Rajivgandhi 7. 8. Pradesh [OUT] of India, High Court of Andhra 9. 10. Two CD Copies V HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22449 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS