APHC010407452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21242 OF 2025 Between: Yalamanchili Vinay Krishna and another ...PETITIONERS AND The Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in continuing the Look-out (Blue Corner) Notice against the petitioners, who are citizens of Australia, and trying to arrest them whenever they visit India, without following the procedure as envisaged under law. SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 2 2. Case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Vijayawada and now they are residing at Australia, having permanent Citizenship of Australia. 1st petitioner came to India for his marriage and after marrying one Yalamanchili Rama Devi on 02.08.2009 he went to Australia within 10 days of his marriage, as he did not get leave to stay in India furthermore. 1st petitioner informed his wife that he would take her to Australia after Visa procedure is completed. The wife of 1st petitioner stayed with 2nd petitioner, the mother of 1st petitioner at Vijayawada for a short period and then left to her parents house and refused to come to Australia. As such, 2nd petitioner went to Australia, as nobody is there at Vijayawada to look after her. While so, the wife of 1st petitioner filed a case in Crime No.3 of 2011 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 384 IPC. On 29.09.2011, petitioners were arrested by the police at Chennai and on 30.09.2011 they were enlarged on bail as the wife of 1st petitioner expressed no objection for grant of bail to them stating that the matter was compromised. Thereafter, on 14.10.2011, the petitioners and the de facto complainant filed a compromise petition, under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, in Crl.MP No.4147 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Vijayawada. However, as the wife of 1st petitioner has not cooperated for compromise, the said compromise petition is pending. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed in the said crime, which was taken on file as CC No.1215 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioners recently came to know that the de SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 3 facto complainant married another person and begot a child. However, by suppressing all the facts, she gave evidence in CC No.1215 of 2012 against the petitioners. In fact, marriage between 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant was dissolved by way of decree of divorce on 7th July, 2015 itself by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, vide File No.(P)SYC1034/2015. Petitioners state that they recently came to know about pendency of case in CC No.1215 of 2012 and Look-out Notice even after lapse of 13 years. Hence, they filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners intend to come to India, but because of pendency of Look-out Notice there is an apprehension that they would be arrested, if they come to India. 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 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.21242 of 2025 4 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 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 2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022 SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 5 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 untrammeled powers to issue, use and exploit the lock- in power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law 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 SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 6 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.” 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submitted that since the whereabouts of the petitioners are not known since long time, CC No.1215 of 2012 was registered as long Pending Case No.3 of 2024, hence he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. In the instant case, the wife of 1st petitioner filed a case against the petitioners in Crime No.3 of 2011 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 7 498-A and 384 IPC. On 29.09.2011, petitioners were arrested by the police at Chennai and on 30.09.2011 they were enlarged on bail as the wife of 1st petitioner expressed no objection for grant of bail to them stating that the matter was compromised. Thereafter, on 14.10.2011, the petitioners and the de facto complainant filed a compromise petition, under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, in Crl.MP No.4147 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Vijayawada. However, as the wife of 1st petitioner has not cooperated for compromise, the said compromise petition is pending. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed in the said crime, which was taken on file as CC No.1215 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioners recently came to know that the de facto complainant married another person and begot a child. However, she gave evidence in CC No.1215 of 2012 against the petitioners. Petitioners state that the marriage between 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant was dissolved by way of decree of divorce on 7th July, 2015 itself by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, vide File No.(P)SYC1034/2015. Petitioners further state that they have no knowledge about filing of charge sheet in the above crime and recently when they intend to come to India, they came to know about filing of charge sheet in the above crime and pendency of Look-out Notice against them since 13 years. 9. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Notice, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 8 respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is 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 such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. 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 respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioners herein. 10. Sub-para (L) of the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt), dated 22.02.2021, indicates that SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 9 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. 11. Going by the stipulation in the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, petitioners would not in any way come within the purview of the parameters that have been laid down in Sub-para (L) of the Circular. 12. 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 Notice issued against the petitioners would not be required. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Look Out Notice issued against the petitioners is 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. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 30.01.2026 Nsr SRK, J WP No.21242 of 2025 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.21242 of 2025 Date: 30.01.2026 Nsr