APHC010071032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 3979/2026 Between: 1. SAMMETA SWARNALATHA,, W/O. S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 371, PRAKASHNAGAR, CHINNAMPALLE VILLAGE OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REP, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, EAST BLOCK VLLL, LEVEL IV SECTOR-1 R.K PURAM, NEW DELHI. 110066. 2. THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG-SECTOR-1, R.K. PURAM, NEWDELHI. 110001. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.522503. 4. THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER, , CHENNAI AIRPORT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CHENNAI,600016 5. THE SUPERINTENDED OF POLICE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT,516001 6. THE OBULAVARIPALLI POLICE STATION, OBULAVARIPALLI ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT516108 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.3979 of 2026 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer; “….pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3, 5 and 6 respondents in issuing the Lookout Circular (LOC) and continuing further against the petitioner Pass Port No. S2351487 in connection with the Crime No.214 of 2025 of Obulavaripalli Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and the orders of this Hon'ble court in WP.No.2269/2026 dated 04.02.2026 and set aside the same or consequently direct the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to withdraw the lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner Pass Port No.S2351487 forth with enabling the petitioner to travel from Chennai to Kuwait and pass.” 2. Case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent authorities opened a Look Out Circular against the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 214 of 2025 of Obulavaripalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is her case that she is an employee working in Kuwait, and her presence there is very much necessary for the SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 3 continuation of her employment; otherwise, her employer may terminate her services, and her presence is likewise necessary at her workplace. It is her case that except for the aforesaid crime, there are no other criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. Moreover, the crime registered against the petitioner pertains to Section 85 read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioner avoiding investigation and judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs Assistant Director’s case in W.P.(Crl.) No.1315 of 2008 and Crl.Ref.No.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 SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 4 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 are not cooperating with the trial or are evading arrest. 6. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another1, wherein it was held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12). “11. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC. 12. The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing 1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022 SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 5 the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. However, a balance has to be struck qua the right of the investigation agency to investigate the instant matter as well as the fundamental right of the petitioner of movement and free speech.” 7. By virtue of opening the LOC, 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. 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 for 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 the case on hand, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A3 in Crime No. 214 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. When the petitioner is carrying on her profession abroad for her livelihood, by virtue of the opening of a Look Out Circular (LOC), there is every SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 6 likelihood that she would lose her job and suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC personal liberty of the person would be affected and it will be a hurdle for the petitioner herein to travel abroad. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in Sumer Singh Saikan’s case stated supra, wherein it was held thus. “In the present case, the LOC was issued against the petitioner soon after the registration of FIR. It is alleged by the petitioner that LOC was issued in view of the fact that complainant’s close relative was an IPS officer. This allegation of the petitioner finds support from the fact that the punishment WP (Crl.) No. 1315 of 2008 & Crl. R. No. 1 of 2006 Page 13 of 16 stated by the police to Interpol in respect of the offences committed has been deliberately given as 10 years while the prescribed punishment is maximum 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner’s description of being ‘violent and dangerous’ also has been added malafidly, with ulterior motive, in view of the fact that allegations against petitioner were of only of emotional torture. Offence of kidnapping was given as the reasons for issuance of RCN, which on the representation of petitioner was removed. It is apparent that the LOC & RCN were issued for extraneous reasons by an officer who was not authorized. The petitioner has also highlighted the difference in statements made by witnesses on different occasions. Since the matter pertaining to these offences is subjudiced, it will not be appropriate to comment on this aspect but suffice it to say that the action against the SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 7 petitioner of issuing RCN was uncalled for in view of the fact that neither offence, for which the petitioner is facing trial in India, is an extraditable offence, nor any request for extradition of the petitioner has been made for the last 7 years despite knowing whereabouts of the petitioner. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for quashing the RCN issued against the petitioner at the behest of Delhi Police. The RCN, is therefore, hereby quashed.” 9. In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid case and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, continuance of LOC against the petitioner herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence the impugned LOC issued against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:26.02.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.3979 of 2026 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.3979 of 2026 Date:26.02.2026 Asr