IN THE HIGH COURT OF^NDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' AMARAVATI n ■A m of O PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SaVtI WRIT PETITION NO: 31518 OF 2094 Between: Baireddy Siva Muralidhar Reddy, Aged 32 years, S/o. Baireddy Rama rishna reddy, R/o. Bandi Atmakur village and Mandal, Nandyal District ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union Of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry Affairs, Government of India, Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Delhi. ' 2. The Bureau of Immigration, Represented by its Commissioner Block VIII, Level-V, Sector-I, R.K.Puram New Delhi- 110066. ' 3. The Foreigners Regional Registration officer (FRRO) Immigration (MHA), Govt, of India, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC, Building, Kengal Hanumanthaiah Rd Shanti Karnataka 560027. 4. The Foreigners R^i^onal Registration officer (FRRO), Immigration (MHA), Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bol Office Residential Complex, Mamidipaliy Village, Shamshabad Road, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State, 5. The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary L'hraTradelh.' of External Road New East Bureau of 5th Floor, A Block Nagar, Bengaluru, Bureau of near CISF - Mamidipaliy r- 6. The Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District 7. The Station House Officer, Nandyal III Town PS. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226^ the circumstances stated be pleased to issue writ, order the Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing and continuing the Look Out Circular (C.NO.20/SP-NDL/^4) dated 01.04.^024, restraining the petitioner herein to travel abroad purely on the crime registered vide FIR.No73/2024dated 24.03.2024fer the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice without following due process of law and consequently set aside the LOC issued against the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 20^4 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of the issued against the Petitioner praying that in the circumstances Look Out Circular in Crime No. 73/2024 u/s 498(A) EPC, 3 and 4 pending disposal of the of DP Act and permit the Petitioner to travel abroad writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Y V ANIL KUMAR Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: (Central APHC010602092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31518/2024 Between: 1.BAIREDDY SIVA MURALIDHAR REDDY, AGED 32 YEARS, S/0. BAIREDDY RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, R/0. BANDI ATMAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.3-1018/E, R.N0.42H, MAYURI NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1.HE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, JAISALMER HOUSE, MANSINGH ROAD NEW DELHI. 2.THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS EAST BLOCK VIII, LEVEL-V, SECTOR-1. COMMISSIONER, R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI- 110066. 3.THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER FRRO, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (MHA), GOVT, OF INDIA, BMTC BUS STAND, 5TH FLOOR, KENGALHANUMANTHAIAH RD KARNATAKA 560027. A BLOCK, TTMC, BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU, 4.THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER FRRO, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (MHA), SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL BOL OFFICE, NEAR CISF RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, MAMIDIPALIY VILLAGE, SHAMSHABAD - MAMIDIPALLY ROAD, SHAMSHABAD, 1 2 HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 5.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI PRADESH. 6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 7.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDYAL III TOWN PS. ...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 may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing and continuing the Look Out Circular (C.NO.20/SP- NDL/2024) dated 01.04.2024, restraining the petitioner herein to travel abroad purely on the crime registered vide FIR.No.73/2024dated 24.03.2024for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice without following due process of law and consequently set aside the LOC issued against the petitioner and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Look Out Circular issued against to be Petitioner in Crime No. 73/2024 u/s 498(A) EPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act and permit the Petitioner to travel abroad, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) 3 The Court made the following; ::ORDER:: Heard Sri T.Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 4 to 7 and Sri G.Bhanu Varma, learned counsel representing Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in issuing and continuing the Look-Out Circular (C.No.20/SP-NDL/2024) dated 01.04.2024, in pursuance of Crime No.73 of 2024 dated 24.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly thus, the petitioner married Ms. Hima Bindu on 12.02.2023 at Nandyal. Thereafter, disputes arose between the couple. The wife of the petitioner Smt Hima Bindu, lodged a complaint against the petitioner, and his family members before III Town Police Station, Nandyal on 24.03.2024. The Police registered the case as Crime No.73 of 2024 for the offences under Section 498-A, r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said crime, the petitioner was shown as accused No.1 and parents of the petitioner are shown as accused Nos.2 and 3 and two other persons were also shown as accused Nos.4 and 5. Later they were exonerated by the investigation agency. 3. Pending investigation, a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner cooperated with the investigation. The Police filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal on 05.08.2024. Petitioner could secure the copy of the charge sheet from the Court by way of a certified copy on 29.11.2024. The charge sheet is ^not numbered so far. 4. * 4® 4 Despite completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, respondents 5 and 6 have not withdrawn the Look-Out Circular issued to the petitioner and hence, the above writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuing the Look-Out Circular to the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also a violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that the investigation of the above crime was completed and in fact, the petitioner cooperated with the investigation agency. Hence, continuing the Look-Out Circular is impermissible. 5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in W.P.No.16136 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.515 of 2024 dated 26.02.2024. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader per-contra while not disputing filing of the charge sheet by the Police before the jurisdictional Court would submit that the petitioner has to approach a competent jurisdictional Court and seek necessary relief. He would submit that the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 8. 9. Sri G.Bhanu Varma, learned counsel representing Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government counsel, would submit that the originating authority has to pass orders withdrawing Look-Out Circular. The b**" respondent has not passed any order and hence, the authorities continuing Look-Out Circular. are 10. The point for consideration is: Whether continuing the look-out circular against is the petitioner permissible. The answer to the question is no longer res Integra. In Mudunury Venu Gopala Raju vs. The Union of India and others, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered continuing a Look-Out 11. 5 Circular despite filing the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance upon the judgment referred in Sumer Singh Saikan vs. Assistant Director’s, W.P.(Crl).No.1315 of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi eventually concluded that continuing Look-Out Circular against the petitioner is an abuse of process and thus quashed the same. The learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court after referring to the circular order and the proceedings of jurisdiction, set aside the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner therein in pending crime. 12. As seen from the facts, there is no dispute that the case in Crime No.73 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner and his parents for the offences under Section 498(A) IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A charge sheet was filed by the police on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal on 05.08.2024. However, the CC number is not assigned. The petitioner, in fact, could secure a certified copy of the charge sheet from the Court. 13. Office memorandum dated 22.02.2021 dealing with consolidated guidelines for issuance of Look-Out Circular, extracted in Avinash Reddy Paladugu vs. The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) and others, are extracted hereunder: 14. ‘A. Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 dealing with consolidated guidelines for issuance of Look Out Circular in respect of Indian Citizens and Foreigners and the relevant paras of the said A, B, C, D, H, I. J, and L. of the said circular are extracted hereunder: "6. The existing guidelines with regard to issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOG) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners have been reviewed by this Ministry. After due deliberations in consultation with various stakeholders and in supersession of all the existing guidelines issued vide this Ministry's letters/0.M. referred to in para 1 above, it has been decided with the approval of the competent authority that the following consolidated guidelines shall be 6 followed henceforth bv all concerned for the purpose of issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOCf in respect of Indian citizens and foreiqners:- A. The request for opening an LOC would be made by the Originating Agency (OA) to the Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration (Bol), East Block - VIII, 110066 (Telefax; 011- 26192883, R.K. Puram, New Delhi email:boihq@nic.in) in the enclosed proforma. B. The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an Originating Agency that shall be an officer not below the rank of - (i) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or (ii) Joint Secretary in the State Government; or (iii) District Magistrate of the District concerned; or (iv) Superintendent of Police (SP) of the District concerned; or (v) SP in CBI officer of equivalent level working in CBI; or (vi) Zonal Director in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or an officer of equivalent level (including Assistant Director (Ops) in Headquarters of NCB]; or (vii) Deputy Commissioner or an officer of equivalent level in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs; or (viii) Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau/Bureau of Immigration (Bol); or (ix) Deputy Secretary of Research and Analysis Wing (R&A W); or (x) An officer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in National Investigation Agency; or (xi) Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or (xii) Protector of Emigrants in the office of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or (xiii) Designated officer of Interpol; or (xiv) An officer of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs not below the rank of Additional Director (in the rank of Director in the Government of India); or (xv) Chairman/Managing Directors/Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks." or an C. LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any Criminal Court in India. In all such cases, request for opening of LOC shall be initiated by the local police or by any other Law Enforcement Agencies concerned so that all parameters for opening LOCs are available. D. The name and designation of the officer signing the Proforma for requesting issuance of an LOC must invariably be mentioned without which the request for issuance of LOC would not be entertained. 7 k H. Recourse to LOG is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in Column IV in the enclosed Proforma regarding 'reason for opening LOG must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LGC will not be arrested/detained. I. In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws, the LGC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The Griginating Agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases. J. The LGC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by Bol from the Griginator itself. No LGC shall be deleted automatically. Griginating Agency must keep reviewing the LGCs opened at its behest on quarterly and annual basis and submit the proposals to delete the LGC. If any, immediately after such a review. The BGI should contact the LGC Griginators through normal channels as well as through the online portal. In all cases where the person against whom LGC has been opened is no longer wanted by the Griginating Agency or by Competent Court, the LGC deletion request must be conveyed to Bol immediately so that liberty of the individual is not jeopardized. L. In exceptional cases, LGCs can be issued even in such cases, as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an Act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time.” The Look-Out Circular has not been defined anywhere. In Sumer Singh case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that Look-Out Circular can be taken by the investigation 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 15. 8 there was a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest and in those circumstances, Look-Out Circular can be opened against the accused. The police can issue a Look-Out Circular in drastic contingencies. It is not the case of the police, in this case at hand, that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. In fact, as referred (supra) investigation was completed and the police filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional magistrate. 16. By issuing the Look-Out Circular and continuing the same, despite the completion of the investigation, the person's personal liberty would be curtailed. The lookout circulars are only circular instructions that have been issued by the police only to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. 17. The learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16136 of 2023 observed as 18. follows: “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 LOO can be issued.” 8. In the case on hand, the offences alleged are only under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the offences are not so grave and when the petitioner is working in USA, by virtue of opening LOO, here is every chance that the petitioner would lose his job and will suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Articlip.21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LCC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. Cn mere registration of FIR 9 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the respondent/police if comes to conclusion to open the LOG against the accused, it will affect his career. In most of the cases it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. In the case on hand, the question of absconding of the petitioner would not arise for the reason that the family members of the petitioner are residing in India only. In such case, it is not necessary for the respondent/polic e to issue LOG.” The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delphi at para 13 observed as under: 19. "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." In "Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another" ^ and in "Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others" reported in ^ very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 20. The Apex Court in "Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer'* held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law. 21. D. In E.V.Perumal Sarny Reddy v State,^ the High Court at Madras while setting aside an LOG, observed as under: 22. "9. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights. It is the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. Gne's such ‘2013(15) see page 570 ^ AIR 1978 Se 597 ^ ^2019 (2) see Online se 2048 ''air 1967 se 1836, 2013 see online Mad 4092 5 10 personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged.[See; Article 21 Constitution of India], in the celebrated in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of persons to go abroad. The phrase no one shall be deprived of his "life and liberty" except procedure established by law employed in Article 21, had deep and pervasive effect on fundamental right and human right. MENAKA GANTHI (supra) ushered a new era in the annals of Indian Human Rights Law. It had gone ahead of American concept of 'Due Process of Law'. 10. But, the fundamental right to move anywhere including foreign countries could be regulated. Where persons involved in criminal cases are wanted for investigation, for court cases, persons, who are anti-social elements their movements can be regulated. Need may arose to apprehend persons, who have ability to fly, flee away the country. So, L.O.C. orders are issued. It is an harmonius wav out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the societv/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis. A conspectus of the authorities referred (supra), the law presunnes that an accused be innocent till his guilt is proved. Look-Out Circular cannot be issued as a matter of course. A right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law. 23. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied upon the judgment in Kiran Somasekar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.24042 of 2021. In that case, neither investigation is completed nor a charge sheet is filed. The facts in the said case and the facts of the case at hand are not similar. 24. Given the discussion supra and facts and circumstances of the case since the investigation is completed and the petitioner co-operated the Look- 25. Fk 11 Out Circular (C.No.20/SP-NDL/2024) dated 01.04.2024 issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTTON ( //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road New Delhi. 2. The Bureau of Immigration, Represented by its Commissioner, East Block VIII, Level-V, Sector-1, R.K.Puram New Delhi- 110066. 3. The Foreigners Regional Registration officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration (MHA), Govt, of India, BMTC Bus Stand, 5th Floor, A Block, TTMC,building, KengalHanumanthaiah Rd, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560027. 4. The Foreigners Regional Registration officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration (MHA), Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bol Office, near CISF Residential Complex, Mamidipaliy Village, Shamshabad - Mamidipally Road, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 5. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, state of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District. - 7. The Station House Officer, Nandyal ill Town PS. 8. One CC to Sri. Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri. Y V Anil Kumar (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] V- 10. Three CD Copies 11. HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.31518 of 2024 X 29 MAR 2025 „ ^ . Cunw* Socuon n*! allowing of the wp WITHOUT COSTS