IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAG WRIT PETITION NO: 32492 OF 2023 Between: Rukmini Korrapati, W/o. Late Krishnamurthy, Aged 63 years, Permanent resident of Arun Apartments, Flat No 306, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500004, presently residing temporary at 12 Treeble Ct, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406, U.S.A. Represented by her General Power Attorney (GPA) Gangavarapu Rambabu son of G. Koteswara Rao, aged 62 years resident of 14-21, Jhansi Arcade, Ilird Floor, Main Road, Poranki Rural, Penamaluru Mandal Krishna District - 521 137, State of Andhra Pradesh. Aadhaar No. 2262 4188 1681 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Superintendent of Police,, Kakinada, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Samalkot P.S., Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Union of India, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by its Commissioner, Immigration East Block VIII Level V Sector IRK Puram, New Delhi. ...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 or Order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 being originating agency in issuing a Look-out Circular notifying the Petitioners name in the Airports in relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to withdraw the said LOC issued against the Petitioner in relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent police station to enable the petitioner tp travel to India, on 31-12-2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation /execution of Look-out Circular notifying the Petitioners name in the Airports In relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent pending disposal of this petition as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 being originating agency to address a letter to the Immigration Authorities immediate effect not to execute the LOC issued against the Petitioner in relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District the file of the 4**^ Respondent police station to enable the petitioner to travel to India on 31-12-2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ROSEDAR S.R.A Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI JUPUDI on V.K.YAGNADUTT (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010629472023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 32492/2023 Between: Rukmini Korrapati ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ROSEDARS.R.A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 ^ ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1. India, claiming the following relief: “To declare the action of the respondents in issuing Look Out Circular notifying the petitioners name in the Airports in relation to Crime No.83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the said LOC issued against the petitioner in relation to Crime No.83 of 2023 on the file of the 4 respondent police station. th Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the 2. respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners straight away takes this Court 3. through the order, dated 30.10.2019, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16731 of 2019, as the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the submission 4. made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Relevant paragraph of the order passed in W.P.No.16731 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019 is extracted hereunder; 3 12. Turning to the facts of the present case, the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate is stayed by the High Court in CrI.R.C No.917 of 2019, thereby the Magistrate Court proceed with the trial against the petitioner, question of avoidance of trial by the petitioner as on date, does not arise, but the authority without applying their mind issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitioner, therefore, the action of respondents is illegal and contrary to guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in Vikram Sharma (cited supra) and law laid down by various courts. Hence, the Red Corner notice is liable to be recalled. 13. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and Madras and Delhi High Courts in two other judgments, I find keeping the look out notice alive, even after filing of charge sheet against the petitioner, despite grant of stay of ail proceedings against the petitioner in CrI.R.C 917 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019, is a clear illegality and hence, I find that it is a fit case to direct the 3rd respondent to recall the red corner notice, since keeping it alive is an arbitrary exercise of power, for no reason. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing 3rd respondent to recall the red corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this 5. Writ Petition is also allowed of in terms of the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16731 of 2019. 4 Further the respondents/competent authority are directed to recall the red y corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16731 of2019tothis order. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. 6. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Fiome Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. The Station House Officer, Samalkot P.S., Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, Immigration East Block VIII Level V Sector, IRK Puram New Delhi. One CC to Sri Rosedar S.R.A, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagnadutt, Central Govt. Counsel[OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of order dated 30.10.2019 in W.P.No.16731 of 2019 to this order) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ssb high court DATED;08/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.32492 of 2023 allowing the W.P. Without costs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHV Writ Petition No.16731 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, to issue writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents in withdrawing Red Corner Notice/Look out notice issued against the petitioner, despite the written representation dated 05.10.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw Red Corner notice/Look out notice issued against this petitioner. 1. It is alleged that based on the report filed by sister-in-law of the petitioner dated 12.03.2018, Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, registered a crime against the petitioner in Crime No. 119 of 2018. In the said crime, his elder brother is arrayed as 1®^ accused, while the petitioner was arrayed as 4“^ accused and parents of the petitioner including mediators were all arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3,'5, 6 and 7. On the basis of the above crime, police took up investigation and filed charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla against the other accused, while deleting the name of the petitioner and two others, after obtaining necessary approval from the superior police officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Police officer and at that stage the sister- in-law of the petitioner filed protest petition and on the basis of enquiry conducted in the protest petition in Crl.M.P 286 of 2019 in cognizance was taken for the offence 2. C.C No.70 of 2019 2 MSM, J wp_16731_2019 punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code ‘I.P.C’) and other section against the petitioner. However, of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section (for short the order 498- A of I.P.C and other offences against this petitioner is challenged in Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019 before this Court and this Court dated 18.09.2019 was pleased to by order pass an order, granting stay of all further proceedings against 5th accused/petitioner herein. Despite grant of stay, the respondents issued Red Corner notice/Look notice against the petitioner. out It is the contention of the petitioner that he company of the other accused. 3. was never in the He was studying B.Tech at Visakhapatnam during the period of alleged commission of offence. The petitioner has completed M.S Operations Research in Columbia University, New York and at present he is working in New York. The petitioner though submitted 05.10.2019, the respondents did not consider the is pending for consideration before the 4. representation dated representation authorities concerned. Therefore he filed the present petition to declare the inaction on the part of respondents to withdraw the Red Corner notice/Look out notice, issued against this petitioner i.e. 5th accused in C.C 70 of 2019. and it 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during hearing, reiterated the contentions, while drawing the attention of this Court to an unreported judgment in Rajesh Sharma and others v. 3 MSM, J wp_16731_2019 State of Uttar Pradesh and another and on the strength of the principle laid down therein, requested to pass appropriate order, recalling the Red Corner notice/Look out notice and requested to issue appropriate direction to the respondents, enabling the petitioner to come back to India. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, supported issuance of Red Corner notice/Look out notice, while contending that the petitioner shall make a representation before the authorities concerned and considering such representation, 3''‘i respondent will pass appropriate orders, withdrawing the look out notice, if they satisfy that there is no interference with the investigation and extending cooperation for the trial of the case and requested to dismiss the petition, at the stage of admission. 7. It is an undisputed fact, that the sister-in-law of the petitioner K. Sandhya Rani, lodged a report with the police, on the basis of the same, a crime was registered in Crime No. 119 of 2018 and later after completion of entire investigation, the investigating agency, concluded that the petitioner did commit no offence along with accused Nos.6 and 7 and filed charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate after obtaining necessary approval from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and thus, the petitioner was not an accused before the Magistrate. On account of filing protest petition by the sister-in-law of the petitioner, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C 4^ 4 MSM, J wp_16731_2019 against the petitioner also, however, the same was stayed by this Court in Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019 by order dated 18.09.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be not an accused as on date, on account of the stay granted by this Court. The respondents issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitione as to disable him from entering into moving out of the country. The petitioner made a representation dated 05.10.2019 to withdraw the r, so notices, as the entire investigation is completed and question of extending co-operation of the petitioner, does not arise. But the representation is kept pending for the last many days and no order has been passed till date. 8. Red Corner notice can be issued only in certain circumstances. But the petitioner is working at New York, account of pendency of Red Corner notice/look out notice, the petitioner is unable to come back to India, apprehending his arrest in connection with the above calendar case. The Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another issued considered guidelines as to when Red Corner on notice can be issued in a case punishable under Section 498-A of l.P.C and made it clear as follows: “arrest in an offence under Section 498-A of l.P.C should be only after recording reasons and express approval from the Superintendent of Police. In respect of relatives who are ordinarily residing outside India, the matter should proceed only if the Investigating Officer is convinced that arrest is necessary for fair investigation. In such cases impounding of passport or issuance of red corner notice should be avoided. Procedure under Section 14 of the Protection of Women from r f 5 MSM, J wpJ6731_2019 Domestic Violence Act, 2005, of counseling .should be made mandatory before registration of a case under Section 498-A ofl.P.C”. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, issue of red corner notice against the family members of the husband of the victim of an offence punishable under Section 498- A of I.P.C is quashed. However, the Apex Court and the other courts laid down certain guidelines as to when such a red corner notice is to be issued. Based on the guidelines, issued in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and others^, the Delhi High Court observed as follows; Look-out-Circular issued against the petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours ofgiving undertaking by the petitioner. One of the questions raised in the reference are as under: What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Look-out-circular? The questions are answered as under: A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused u'fli' deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Ofifcer shall make a written request for LOC to the ofifcer as notiifed by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent ofifcer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. Or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial Court where case is pending or havingjurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. (2010) DMC 666 6 MSM, J wp_l 6731_ 2019 D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts'jurisdiction in ajjirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation ofNBWs or afifrming NBWs. 9. In C.Jeyashekar Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai and 3 and another V. The Deputy others, the Madras High Court held that when the investigation of the case is culminated by filing a charge-sheet and consequent registration of calendar case, there is no question of keeping the look out notice alive, which was issued to ensure presence during the course of investigation. In view of the conclusions arrived by the Madras High V. The Deputy Court in C.Jeyashekar and another Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai directly applicable to the present facts of the and 3 others is case, since investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the accused, deleting the name of the petitioner, cognizance order taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and other offences is already stayed by this Court. Therefore, keeping the red corner notice alive completion of investigation is an arbitrary exercise. after In Cheruvathur Chakkutty Thampi @ C.C Thampi v. Union of India and others the Madras High Court adverted to the law declared by the Delhi High Court. Based on judgment of Delhi High Court in Vikram Sharma 10. V. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued guidelines for issue of LOC, dated 27.10.2010; the guidelines are as follows: 7 MSM, J wp_I6731_2019 > The request for opening an LOC would be made by originating agency to Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration (Bol), East Block- VIII, R.K Puram, New Delhi - 66 (Telefax; 011-2619244) in the proforma enclosed: a) b) The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an officer not below the rank of i. Deputy Secretary to the Government of; 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 or an officer of equivalent lever 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 Excise and Customs; or viii. Assistant Director of IB/Bol; or ix. Deputy Secretary of R&Aw; or x. An officer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in Nationeil Investigation Agency; or xi. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or xii. Protector of Emigrants in the office of the Protectorate of Emigrant or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the Government of India; or xiii. Designated officer to Interpol Further LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any Criminal Court in India. 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. c) The contact details of the originator must be provided in column VI of the enclosed proforma. The contact telephone/mobile number of the respective control room should be mentioned to ensure proper communication for effective follow up action. Care must be taken by the originating agency to ensure that complete identifying particulars of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened, are indicated in the Proforma mentioned above. It should be noted that an LOC cannot be opened unless a minimum of three identifying parameters, as given in the enclosed Proforma, apart from sex and nationality, are available. However, LOC can also be issued if name and passport particulars of the person concerned are available. It is the responsibility of the originator to constantly review the LOC requests and proactively provide additional parameters to minimize harassment to genuine passengers. The legal liability of the action taken by the immigration authorities in pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating agency. Recourse to LOC 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 LOC’ must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detaine d. d) e) f) g) 8 MSM, J wp_16731_2019 h) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC __ penal laws, the LOG subject cannot be detained/arrested prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases. The LOG will be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue and name of the subject shall be automatically removed from the LOG thereafter unless the concerned agency requests for its renewal within a period of one year. With effect from 1.1.2011, all LOGs with more than one year validity shall be deemed to have lapsed unless the agencies concerned specifically requests Bol for continuation of the names in the LOG. However, this provision for automatic deletion after one year shall not be applicable in following cases: a. Ban-entry LOGs issued for watching arrival of wanted persons (which have a specific duration); b. loss of passport LOGs (which ordinarily continue till the validity of the document); c. LOGs regarding impounding of passports; d. LOGs issued at behest of Gourts and Interpol. or other or i) j) In exceptional cases , LOGs can be issued without complete parameters and /or case details against GI suspects, terrorists, antinational elements, etc in larger national interest. k) The following procedure will be adopted in case statutoiy bodies like the NGW, the NHRG and the National Gommission for Protection of Ghildren’s Rights request for preventing any Indian/foreigner from leaving India. Such requests along with full necessary facts are first to be brought to the notice of law enforcement agencies like the police. The S.P. concerned will then make the request for issuance of notice upon an assessment of the situation, and strictly in terms of the procedure outlined for the purpose. The immigration/emigration authorities will strictly go by the communication received from the officers authorized to open LoGs as detailed in the para 8(b) above. 11. In Suresh Nanda V. Union of India?, after referring judgment of Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India? observed; There has to be application of mind by the authority to the relevant factors that would enable it to come to the conclusion that the impounding of the passport is in the interests of the general public. And then again, in the context of the criminal case which is still under investigation, this cannot be an opinion formed at one point in time. The public interest element will vary depending on the stage of the investigation. It cannot be said that as long as the investigation is not complete, it is not in public interest to release a passport. That would be giving too wide a power to the authority. ^2010 IV AD (Del) 53 -’(1978) 1 see 248 / •i MSM, J wp_l6731_2019 9 In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K'*, a member of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislate Assembly was detained by the Police while on his way to attend a session of the assembly. By the time the petition filed by him challenging his detention was heard, he had already been released. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court examined the case and concluded that his detention was unlawful. It then proceeded to award him compensation after observing: "Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar^ and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India®. When a person comes to with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this appropriate case." us an 12. Turning to the facts of the present case, the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate is stayed by the High Court in Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019, thereby the Magistrate Court proceed with the trial against the petitioner, question of avoidance of trial by the petitioner as on date, does not arise, but the authority without applying their mind issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitioner, therefore, the action of respondents is illegal and contrary to guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in Vikram Sharma (cited supra) and law laid down by various courts. Hence, the Red Corner notice is liable to be recalled. hi985) 4 see 677 hl983) 3 SeR 508 ‘AIR 1984 se 1026 10 MSM, J wp_]6731_20]9 41 In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 13. another and Madras and Delhi High Courts in two other judgments, I find keeping the look out notice alive, even after filing of charge sheet against the petitioner, despite grant of stay of all against the petitioner in Crl.R.C 917 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019, i clear illegality and hence, I find that it is a fit case to direct the 3^d proceedings is a respondent to recall the red corner notice, since keeping it alive i an arbitrary exercise of power, for no reason. IS 14. IS 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing 3'-d respondent to recall the red corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 30.10.2019 Rvk Note: Issue C.C by 04.11.2019 b/o. Rvk