APHC010605912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 212/2025 Between: 1. SYED ABDUL RAJAK, S/O LATE PATCHA HUSSAIN. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MUSLIM,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 16-2- 126/2, NAYAB BAZAR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, IMMIGRATION, EAST BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3. THE S H O, WOMEN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent authorities in issuing Lookout Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner bearing Indian Passport No P031143 at the instance of the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being Contrary to the provisions of Passport Act 1967 and consequently to set aside the same and further direct the 3rd Respondent to SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 communicate the closure of LOC to the 2nd Respondent herein as per the procedure laid down under Office Memorandum aforementioned and pass IA 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 suspension of the Lookout circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner vide LOC Suspect sheet No. 1949266 bearing Indian Passport No.P031143 and also direct the 3rd respondent to communicate the same to the 2nd respondent Pending disposal of the above WP and pass IA NO: 2 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 3rd respondent to communicate the suspension of the Lookout circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner vide LOC Suspect sheet No. 1949266 bearing Indian Passport No.P031143 to the 2nd respondent Pending disposal of the above WP, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PHANI KIRAN.M Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Lookout Circular (LOC) against the petitioner, at the instance of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. Page 3 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 2. Heard Sri M. Phani Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General appeared for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appeared for respondent No.3. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner married one Syed Maleenu on 11.09.2008. The petitioner, along with his wife, went to USA, on an employment, led a happy marital life for some time and was blessed with one child. The wife of the petitioner came back to India and filed a criminal case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. She also filed a case under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The police filed a final report on the file of the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, and the same was numbered C.C.No.562 of 2021. Thereafter, the Lookout Circular was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was detained by the respondent No.2 authorities on 10.09.2024. Respondent No.3 produced the petitioner before the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The jurisdictional Magistrate granted bail on the same day upon furnishing the sureties. However, the Lookout Circular (LOC) was issued against the petitioner and the same was not recalled. 4. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted the instructions of the Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station. In the instructions, it was mentioned that the petitioner was arrayed as A1 in Cr.No.249 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act of Mahila PS. Later, the petitioner was detained by the Immigration, RGIA, Hyderabad. The petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional criminal Court. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and requested the jurisdictional Magistrate to merge both cases. After merging both the charge sheets, the Criminal Court assigned C.C.No.3523 of 2024 and posted the matter to 23.01.2024 for cross-examination of the accused. Page 4 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the continuing lookout circular, even after the filing of charge sheet, is not only arbitrary and illegal, but also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.16136 of 2023, by relying upon the Sumer Singh Saikan v. Assistant Director’s case in W.P.(Crl.) No.1315 of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.1 of 2006, held that the opening of LOC against the petitioner therein is nothing but an abuse of process of law and eventually quashed the same by order dated 09.10.2023. 7. In the case at hand, a criminal case, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, was registered against the petitioner. Later, the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, the police filed a charge sheet and requested to merge both charge sheets. The charge sheets were merged, and C.C.No.3523 of 2024 is pending. Thus, the petitioner co-operated with the investigation and, as noted supra, the C.C. is coming up for trial. 8. 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 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. 9. In E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy vs. State1, the Madras High Court while setting aside an LOC, observed as under: "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 1 2013 SCC Online Mad.4092 SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One's such 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 WP_515_2024 SN,J 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 way out between a person's fundamental right and interest of the society/state. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.” 10. 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. In those circumstances, continuing Lookout Circular (LoC) issued against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process. Page 6 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner vide LOC suspect No.1949266, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 24.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.212 of 2025 210 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.212 OF 2025 Date : 24.03.2025 TVN