APHC010213342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 11043/2025 Between: 1. PAMIDI ANUDEEP, S/O PAMIDI CHINNA SUBBA NAIDU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O 4461 BRIANWOOD, BRITISH COLUMBIA,CANADA. REP. BY HIS SPL. POWER OF ATTORNEY 2. PAMIDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. CHINNA SUBBUNAIDU, AGE 50 YEARS. R/O D.NO.9-521, ALAKURAPADU VILLAGE, TANGUTURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P 3. PAMIDI CHINNA SUBBUNAIDU,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-521, ALAKURAPADU VILLAGE, TANGUTURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER(S) A N D 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION), EAST BLOCK - VIII, LEVAL - V, SECTOR, 1, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066. 3. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR (IMMIGRATION), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 066. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, 6 BN, A.P.S.P., MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE TOWN, SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 2 SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULAVAPADU POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP ...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 a direction or Order more like Writ of Mandamus declaring the Look-Out Circular ((LOC) vide No.1/SIC(ACK)/LOC/2023 - 12521 and No.1/SIC/(ACK)/LOC/ 2023 -12548, dated 24-08-2023 issued against Petitioners by the Respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of Respondents 4 to 6 in CC.No.63/2024 in FIR No.97/2023 dated 27/07/2023 of Kandukur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, before the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate's Court at Kandukur, Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, and Unconstitutional and to consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case 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 suspend the Look-Out Circular ((LOC) vide No.1/SIC(ACK)/LOC/2023-12521 & No.1/SIC/(ACK)/ LOC/2023 - 12548, dated 24-08-2023 issued against Petitioners by the Respondents 1 to 3 at the instance of Respondents 4 to 6 in CC.No.63/2024 in FIR No.97/2023 dated 27/07/2023 of Kandukur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, before the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Kandukur, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the main criminal petition pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIKHIL CHOWDARY GUNTUPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 3 O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in issuing Look Out Circulars (LOC) vide No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC/2023-12521 & No.1/SIC/(ACK)/LOC/2023- 12548, dated 24.08.2023 against petitioners at the instance of de facto complainant and her family members in Crime No.97 of 2023 of Ulavapadu Police Station, SPSR Nellore, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which is the subject matter of Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the said Look Out Circulars. 2. It is the case of petitioners that 1st petitioner is son of 2nd and 3rd petitioners; that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Passport holders; that the petitioner No.1 is working as Software Engineer in HCL Company, Canada and he is also a passport holder issued by the Republic of India vide No.X7125772; that marriage of 1st petitioner was performed with the de facto complainant viz., Tammineni Vyshnavi on 12.05.2022. Subsequently, due to SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 4 matrimonial disputes between them, the de facto complainant got registered a case in Crime No.97 of 2023 of Ulavapadu Police Station, SPSR Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the petitioners; that in the said crime, police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur; that in the charge sheet it was stated that the Investigating Officer served notices to 2nd and 3rd petitioners but could not serve notice to 1st petitioner, as he is residing in Canada. (b) That later, Look Out Circulars vide No.1/SIC/ACK/ LOC/2023-12521 & No.1/SIC/(ACK)/LOC/2023-12548, dated 24.08.2023 were issued against the petitioners on the ground that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 would abscond from India as they are passport holders; that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were mentally distressed due to false case in Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur; that the petitioner No.1 is staying in Canada for his work purpose and as the Look Out Circular was issued, 1st petitioner was restricted to enter into India to attend his parents or SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 5 to pursue case got registered by his wife; that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed Criminal Petition No.1273 of 2025 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur; that in the said Criminal Petition, presence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court was dispensed with; that even though the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were in India and attending the Court regularly, the respondents issued Look Out Circulars against them. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though 2nd and 3rd petitioners are in India and pursuing the case in Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, the respondents issued Look Out Circulars against them along with 1st petitioner, who is working in Canada. Further, due to the Look Out Circular, 1st petitioner was not able to come to India to see his parents and also to pursue the case vide Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, and it would be a hurdle for 1st petitioner to travel and in each and every Airport he would be stopped and his credentials would be questioned by the Immigration and he would be SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 6 restrained in the Airport without issuing boarding pass. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would undertake that they would cooperate in the proceedings pending before the Court below. 4. 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 the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to 1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022. SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 7 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.” 5. He also placed reliance on a decision in Mannoj Kumar Jain & another v. Union of India & others2, wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22). “20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Sub-paragraph J of the OM dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC shall be deleted automatically. Although these clauses cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a quarterly / annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, this is sadly found to be absent in most cases. Once a Look Out Circular is issued, it remains alive and kicking for almost all times to come. This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. The Banks have been given untrammelled powers to issue, use and exploit the lock-in power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law 2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022. SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 8 to the person at the receiving end of it. The expressions "... detrimental... to the economic interest of India" in the concerned OM is sufficient to sharpen the talons of a vindictive Bank to clip the wings of a vulnerable prey (in the metaphoric sense). The Writ Court hence can and should step in to check such unregulated abuse of power by Banks where the facts demand relief. 21. In view of the above reasons, the respondent No.8 Indian Overseas Bank cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country. The interference sought to be imposed by way of the Look Out Circular is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The CBI Courts, where the cases are pending, are free to pass orders or impose conditions as the Courts may deem fit. The petitioners have not claimed any reliefs against those proceedings in the writ petition. This Court however sees no reason to allow the impugned Look Out Circular to remain or be used against the petitioners in the absence of any acceptable apprehension, let alone evidence, shown on behalf of the Bank. 22. WPA 22748 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned Look Out Circular issued by the respondent No.8 Bank. The respondent No.8 and the other respondents shall not continue to give any further effect to the Look Out Circular which would have the effect of preventing the petitioners to travel outside India. The writ petition and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.” SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 9 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioners are cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioners avoiding judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. In the case on hand, petitioners state that after receiving summons in Calendar Case No.63 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, 2nd and 3rd petitioners have been regularly attending the Court on each and every adjournment. The petitioner No.1 has been working in Canada and he could not attend in the said proceedings due to the Look Out Circular. 9. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that this Court vide Order, dated 07.02.2025 in Criminal Petition No.1273 of 2025 dispensed the presence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 except on the dates, as directed by the learned Magistrate, until further orders. At present, there is no Non-Bailable Warrant or any coercive process pending against the petitioners. The petitioners are fully cooperating with the Investigating agency and regularly appearing before the Court below on all adjournments. Petitioner SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 10 No.1 states that he is working in Canada and required to travel abroad as a part of his employment and professional responsibilities and he could not come to India and see his parents and pursue the case proceedings pending before the trial Court. In such circumstances, Look Out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s fundamental right of movement. 10. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial in a criminal case. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Sections 498A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioners are cooperating with the trial or they are evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. 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, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 11 such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the alleged offences are not so grave and, if 1st petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment and to see his parents i.e. 2nd and 3rd petitioners, by virtue of opening LOC against them, petitioners would 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. On mere registration of a case for a matrimonial office, opening of the LOC will affect the career of a person. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the police to open LOC against the petitioners herein. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid precedents, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioners would amount abuse of process of law. SRK, J W.P.No.11043 of 2025 12 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 27th January, 2026. DNB