APHC010077902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4214/2025 Between: Razikh Shaik Mahammad @ Shaik Mohammad Razikh and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home Affairs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri G. Suryam, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Niranjan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 3 to 6. SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the writ petition against respondent No.7, and the same is recorded. 3. The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.5 impugning the Look-Out Circular against the petitioners, in pursuance of crime No.37 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022 registered by the Women Police Station, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’), wherein the petitioners were shown as A1, A3 and A4 and their GPA holder is arrayed as A2, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and Sufia Sulthano Bano Mohammed was solemnised on 05.12.2020 as per the Islamic customs. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and sister, respectively, of petitioner No.1. The wife of petitioner No.1 complained to the Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam, on 19.03.2022, and the same was registered as crime No.37 of 2020, for the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections, against the petitioners. Police filed a final report before the V Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Machilipatnam and the same is numbered as C.C.No.898 of 2022. The petitioners have been residing in Canada, and notices under Section 41-A were served to the petitioners through WhatsApp. Thereafter, the petitioners 1 to 3 filed Crl.Petitions 995 of 2023, 5894 of 2024 and 6654 of 2022, respectively, to quash the charge sheet against them. In the said petitions, the appearance of petitioners 1 and 2 was dispensed with, and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.898 of 2022 were stayed insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned. While the matter stood thus, Look-Out Circular was issued against the petitioners. Questioning the said, the above writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, as per the orders in Crl.P.No.995 of 2023 and 5894 of 2024, the presence of petitioners 1 and 2, SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 before the trial Court has been dispensed with, except on the dates, when their presence is required by the learned trial Court. The father of petitioners 1 and 3 and husband of petitioner No.2 filed a special vakalat and has been representing petitioners 1 and 2 in criminal proceedings before the trial Court. Learned counsel would further submit that Crl.P.No.6654 of 2022, filed by petitioner No.3, was allowed on 10.01.2025, quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.898 of 2022, against her. Despite the same, a Look- Out Circular, issued against her on 13.01.2023, has been continuing. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing Look-Out Circular against the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Police registered a case against the petitioners and their GPA holder, and in pursuance of the crime No.37 of 2022, Look-Out Circular was issued against the petitioners. Consideration: 7. A Look-Out circular cannot be issued routinely. Issuing and continuation of Look-Out Circular in criminal cases, registered under Section 498-A of IPC, was considered by the learned single Judge of Telangana, in Avinash Reddy Paladugu vs. Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others1. 8. This Court in W.P.No.4788 of 2025 (Bagadi Santosh Kumar v. Union of India) and learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24549 of 2023 (Danda Naveen Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.) considered continuation of Look-Out Circular in criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 323 of IPC and eventually quashed the Look-Out Circular. 1 2024 (4) ALD 145 SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 9. In E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy vs. State2, 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 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi3 held that 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. 2 2013 SCC Online Mad.4092 3 (2013) 15 SCC 570 SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 11. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another4; and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others5, held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 12. A Look-Out Circular, issued, cannot be cancelled unless the originator withdraws the Look-Out Circular. The guidelines on the Look-Out Circular were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt.) dated 22.02.2021. 13. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator, and that no Look- Out Circular shall be deleted automatically. Indeed, clause (J) also casts an obligation on the originating agency to review the Look-Out Circular on a quarterly/annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same. 14. Sub-para L of the circular dated 22.02.2021 indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State, if such person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time. 15. 15. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the case registered against the petitioners is under Sections 498-A, 324 and 506 of IPC. The instructions mentioned in Sub-para L of the circular, looking at the facts of the case, it may not warrant the issuance of a Look-Out Circular. 4 AIR 1978 SC 597 5 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 16. The petitioners are residing in Canada. When the matter was listed on 07.04.2025, this Court directed the petitioners to file an affidavit as to when the petitioners 1 and 2 will come down to India. The GPA holder of the petitioners filed an additional affidavit, vide U.S.R. No.39621 / 2025, stating that petitioner No.2 is coming down to India in three months, and insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is stated that he is unable to come to India due to non-sanctioning of leaves. The additional affidavit reveals that the GPA Holder of the petitioners, who is none other than the father of petitioners 1 and 3 and husband of petitioner No.2, has been representing petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.No.898 of 2022, by filing a special vakalat. The trial in the said case has not yet commenced. 17. A copy of the charge sheet was filed along with the Writ affidavit. As can be seen from the charge sheet, A1 to A4 are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; A2 is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 506 and 354-A of IPC; and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 506. 18. The Look-Out Circular is a circular instruction that has been issued by the Police to detain a person to ensure that he will cooperate for the trial. By virtue of a Look-Out Circular, the personal liberty of an individual will be curtailed. Since charge sheet is already filed against the petitioners, and as stated in the additional affidavit, the GPA holder/A2 is attending the criminal proceedings before the trial Court, on behalf of all the accused, and the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.3/A4 are quashed by order dated 10.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.6654 of 2022, continuing Look-Out Circular against the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Look-Out Circulars issued against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Page 7 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 19. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed at the admission stage. The Look-Out Circulars issued against the petitioners, in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022, of the Women Police Station, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, are hereby quashed. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall co-operate with the prosecution for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 10.04.2025 ikn SRS,J W.P.No.4214 of 2025 228 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4214 of 2025 Dated: 10.04.2025 ikn