SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Avinash Reddy Paladugu vs The Bureau Of Immigration Boi, on 26 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Telangana High Court

Avinash Reddy Paladugu vs The Bureau Of Immigration Boi, on 26 February, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

1
WP_515_2024
SN,J

hIN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

W.P. No. 515 of 2024

Between:

Avinash Reddy Paladugu
… Petitioner
And

The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) and others
… Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 26.02.2024

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

__
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
WP_515_2024
SN,J

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

W.P. No. 515 of 2024

% 26.02.2024

Between:

Avinash Reddy Paladugu
… Petitioner
And
The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) and others
… Respondents

Gist:

 Head Note:

!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr Katika Ravinder Reddy

^counsel for Respondent No. 1:Dy.Solicitor General of India
^ counsel for Respondent No. 2: G.P. for Home
^ counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. T.Sudhakar Reddy

? Cases Referred:
1. 2013 (15) SCC 570
2. AIR 1978 SC 597
3. 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048
4. AIR 1967 SC 1836
5. 2013 SCC online Mad 4092
6. 2021 SCC online Tri 143
7. 2018 SCC online Mad 2229
3
WP_515_2024
SN,J

HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

W.P. No. 515 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr Gadi Praveen,

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on

behalf of Respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader

for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and

Mr T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.3.

2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as

under :

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in
issuing Look Out Circular against the petitioner based on
Crime No. 211 of 2023, dated 07.04.2023, on the file of
Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad, as illegal and
contrary to law and an abuse of authority and process of
law, and consequently, direct the Respondents to
withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against the
petitioner based on Crime No. 211 of 2023, dated
07.04.2023, on the file of Women Police Station, DD,
Hyderabad.

4

WP_515_2024
SN,J

3. PERUSED THE RECORD :

A. Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 dealing

with consolidated guidelines for issuance of Look Out

Circular in respect of Indian Citizens and Foreigners and

the relevant paras of the said A, B, C, D, H, I, J, and L,

of the said circular are extracted hereunder:

“6. The existing guidelines with regard to issuance of
Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens
and foreigners have been reviewed by this Ministry.
After due deliberations in consultation with various
stakeholders and in supersession of all the existing
guidelines issued vide this Ministry’s letters/O.M.
referred to in para 1 above, it has been decided with the
approval of the competent authority that the following
consolidated guidelines shall be followed henceforth by
all concerned for the purpose of issuance of Look Out
Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and
foreigners:-

A. The request for opening an LOC would be made by
the Originating Agency (OA) to the Deputy Director,
Bureau of Immigration (BoI), East Block – VIII, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi – 110066 (Telefax: 011- 26192883,
email:
[email protected]) in the enclosed proforma.

5

WP_515_2024
SN,J

B. The request for opening of LOC must invariably be
issued with the approval of an Originating Agency that
shall be an officer not below the rank of – (i) Deputy
Secretary to the Government of India; 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 level 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
Indirect Taxes and Customs; or (viii) Assistant Director
of Intelligence Bureau/Bureau of Immigration (BoI); or

(ix) Deputy Secretary of Research and Analysis Wing
(RA W); or (x) An officer not below the level of
Superintendent of Police in National Investigation
Agency; or (xi) Assistant Director of Enforcement
Directorate; or (xii) Protector of Emigrants in the office
of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an officer not below
the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of
India; or (xiii) Designated officer of Interpol; or (xiv) An
officer of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO),
Ministry of Corporate Affairs not below the rank of
Additional Director (in the rank of Director in the
6
WP_515_2024
SN,J

Government of India); or (xv) Chairman/Managing
Directors/Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks.”

C. LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any
Criminal Court in India. In all such cases, request
for opening of LOC shall be initiated by the local
police or by any other Law Enforcement Agencies
concerned so that all parameters for opening LOCs
are available.

D. 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.

H. 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/detained.

I. In cases where there is no cognizable offence
under
IPC and other penal laws, the LOC subject
cannot be detained/arrested or 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.
7

WP_515_2024
SN,J

J. The LOC opened shall remain in force until and
unless a deletion request is received by BoI from
the Originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted
automatically. Originating Agency must keep
reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on
quarterly and annual basis and submit the
proposals to delete the LOC. If any, immediately
after such a review. The BOI should contact the
LOC Originators through normal channels as well
as through the online portal. In all cases where
the person against whom LOC has been opened is
no longer wanted by the Originating Agency or by
Competent Court, the LOC deletion request must
be conveyed to BoI immediately so that liberty of
the individual is not jeopardized.

L. In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in
such cases, as may not be covered by the
guidelines above, whereby departure of a person
from India may be declined at the request of any
of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above, if
it appears to such authority based on inputs
received that the departure of such person is
detrimental to the sovereignty or security or
integrity of India or that the same is detrimental
to the bilateral relations with any country or to the
strategic and/or economic interests of India or if
such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially
indulge in an Act of terrorism or offences against
8
WP_515_2024
SN,J

the State and/or that such departure ought not be
permitted in the larger public interest at any given
point in time.

B) The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit

and the vacate stay petition filed by the 2nd Respondent

paras 3, 4 read as under :

“3. It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent No.
3 herein i.e., Talasani Manohar Reddy, had lodged a
complaint with the Respondent No. 2 i.e., Station House
Officer, Women Police Station, Central Zone, Hyderabad
on 07.04.2023 with regard to matrimonial disputes.
Pursuant to that, a case was registered in Crime No.
211/2023 Under
Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC; Section 3
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner/A-1
and 3 others and investigation has been taken up.
During the course of investigation, Notices have been
served to the petitioner / A-1 along with other accused
persons through WhatsApp.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the investigating
officer made a requisition to the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad for issuance of Look Out
Circular (LOC) against the petitioner / A-1. Thereupon
the concerned department issued Look Out Circular
(LOC) against the petitioner / A-1. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet has been filed vide C.C. No.
160/2024 and the case is pending before
9
WP_515_2024
SN,J

the Hon’ble XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Nampally, Hyderabad with a prayer to issue Non
Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner / A-1 and
other accused persons who are absconding since the
registration of Criminal case.”

C) The counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent

para 12 reads as under :

“12. It is further submitted that the alleged actions
which are initiated by the petitioner before the Courts at
United States of America are nothing to do with the
complaint which was lodged by the 3rd respondent, the
marriage has took place in Hyderabad on 24.3.2019,
the petitioner and his wife lived some time in
Hyderabad and thereafter the petitioner and his wife
were shifted and stayed United States of America and
some time stayed in India also and the harassment
other domestic violences are committed in both the
places i.e., in Hyderabad as well as United States of
America, therefore the complaint is rightly registered by
the police and which required to be conducted
investigation and trial, his presence is more important,
otherwise the trial would not be continued, therefore no
ground is made in the writ petition nor any prima facie
case is made out by the petitioner for interference of
this Hon’ble Court, consequent upon the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed with costs. Because the only
reason has to be considered by this Hon’ble Court
10
WP_515_2024
SN,J

whether any notice has been issued before LOC is
opened against the petitioner, in fact the notices were
served on 20.9.2023 and 22.9.2023 itself, that is
sufficient for opening of LOC against the petitioner for
securing his presence for conduction of the trial in
Crime No. 211 of 2023 now it is numbered as C.C. No.
160/2024 on the file of the XIII Addl. Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, at Manoranjan Comlex, Hyderabad.

4. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments

made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the

petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in

brief, is as follows:

a) The 3rd respondent herein had lodged a complaint dated

07.04.2023 and based on the said complaint, the police have

registered FIR against the Accused Nos. 1 to 4, wherein the

petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No. 211

of 2023, dated 07.04.2023, for the offences punishable under

section 498-A, 406 of IPC, Sec 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

b) The 3rd respondent herein alleged in his complaint that

his daughter got married to the petitioner on 24.03.2019 and

thereafter 3 months after the marriage, the petitioner and his

family members have harassed the daughter of the 3rd
11
WP_515_2024
SN,J

respondent for additional dowry at the instance of petitioner’s

mother, petitioner’s sister and petitioner’s brother-in-law and

based on the said complaint dated 07.04.2023 the police have

registered the crime vide FIR No.211/2022 against the

petitioner herein.

c) The petitioner and his wife namely Sindhu Reddy Talsani

are residents of USA and they are living there since 2015.

Further, several Court proceedings are going on between

them, such as Divorce petition, child custody and domestic

violence, are registered against the petitioner and the same

are pending for adjudication but by suppressing the above

said facts the 3rd respondent herein got filed the present

complaint. Moreover, the USA court has found mistake on the

part of the petitioner’s wife for harassing the petitioner

physically and mentally under domestic violence and granted

the petitioner’s request for restraint order against petitioner’s

wife Smt. Sindhu Reddy Talasani. Also, there is a police

incident report against Sindhu Reddy Talasani vide case

FPD21-2509.

d) However, the police issued Look Out Circular against the

Petitioner based on FIR No.211/2023, dated 07.04.2023
12
WP_515_2024
SN,J

registered against the Petitioner by the father-in-law of the

Petitioner, i.e., Sri Talasani Manohar Reddy, on the file of WPS,

Hyderabad wherein the Petitioner is Accused No.1 for the

offences Under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of

D.P. Act without following due procedure of law, wherein the

petitioner was informed about the said criminal case through

email on 22.09.2023. But the police without considering the

same had issued LOC against the petitioner.

e) Therefore, the issuance of the impugned lookout circular

dated 07.04.2023 by the 1st Respondent on the request of 2nd

Respondent is an arbitrary exercise of power, abuse of

authority and no reasons have been supplied by the

Respondents to the Petitioner for issuing the LOC. Aggrieved

by the issuance of said LOC, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner mainly put-forth the following submissions :

i. The police at the behest of the Respondent No.3 who
is having political influence had registered a criminal
case against the Petitioner and his family members
without conducting preliminary enquiry, which is bad
in law.

13

WP_515_2024
SN,J

ii. The registration of the criminal case is intimated to
the Petitioner vide e-mail dated 22.09.2023.
iii. Copy of LOC has not been served on the Petitioner
till as on date.

iv. The impugned LOC issued against the Petitioner is
without application of mind and in clear violation of
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
v. The Petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with
the conduct of the trial of the case and question of
absconding and avoiding court proceedings does not
arise.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid submissions

submits that the writ petition should be allowed as

prayed for.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd

Respondent mainly puts-forth the following

submissions:

a) The 3rd respondent had lodged a complaint before the

2nd respondent with regards to matrimonial disputes and

pursuant to the said complaint, a case was registered in

Crime No. 211 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC, Sec

3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner/ A-1 and

3 others and thereafter, investigation has taken place as well
14
WP_515_2024
SN,J

as notices were served to the petitioner/A-1 along with the

other accused persons through what’s App.

b) The investigating officer made a requisition to the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad for

issuance of Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner.

Thereupon, the concerned department issued LOC against the

petitioner and upon completion of the investigation, charge

sheet has been filed vide C.C No. 160/2023 and the case is

pending before the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad with a prayer to issue a Non-Bailable

Warrant against the petitioner and other accused persons who

are absconding since the registration of Criminal case.

c) Moreover, the 2nd respondent is discharging legitimate

duty and apart from investigation they did not harass,

threaten or interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner

nor the 2nd respondent has taken any coercive steps against

the petitioner in any manner.

d) This court has granted interim orders dated 05.01.2024

passed in I.A No. 1 of 2024 in W.P No. 515 of 2024,

suspending the LOC for a period of one week from the said
15
WP_515_2024
SN,J

date (05.01.2024). However, when the case is pending trail

and the summons is pending against the petitioner, the

petitioner cannot obtain the interim direction as it hinders the

trial process. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and

is liable to be dismissed and as such the interim order is liable

to be vacated.

7. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No. 3, mainly puts-forth the following

submissions:

a) The 3rd respondent had lodged a complaint before the

2nd respondent with regards to matrimonial disputes and

pursuant to the said complaint, a case was registered in

Crime No. 211 of 2023 under sections 498-A, 406 of IPC, Sec

3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and the

same was informed to the petitioner through emails dated

20.09.2023 and 22.09.2023.

b) However, the petitioner neither co-operated nor

attended before the investigating officer for the investigation

and trial of the case. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/police

after following due procedure contemplated under the
16
WP_515_2024
SN,J

Lookout Circular and the guidelines issued the LOC against

the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance

he has to approach the court below where the case is pending

i.e., C.C No. 160 of 2023 on the file XIII Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad by filing

appropriate petition or to approach the Superintendent of

Police for the purpose of withdrawal of LOC, and give proper

security or undertaking that the writ petitioner will be present

and appear and participate in a trial in C.C.No. 160 of 2024.

c) Moreover, the petitioner is not living in India and he is

staying in United States of America and it is very difficult to

secure his presence in the criminal case which is pending

against him, petitioner neither cooperated with the

investigating agency nor appeared at any point of time before

the trial court. Due to non-appearance by the petitioner either

before the trial court or before the investigating officer, the

trial court has not yet proceeded with the trial of the case

which is causing delay in the proceedings as well.

d) The alleged actions which are initiated by the petitioner

before the Courts at United States of America have nothing to

do with the complaint which was lodged by the 3rd respondent
17
WP_515_2024
SN,J

as the marriage took place in Hyderabad on 24.03.2019 and

the petitioner and his wife lived some time in Hyderabad.

e) The petitioner herein filed the writ petition and obtained

the ex-parte interim orders on 05.01.2024 in W.P.No.515 of

2024 and this Court has granted interim orders for a period of

one week. However, there are no grounds/reason for

interference of this Court and his presence is required in

C.C.No.160 of 2024 for conduct of trial. Moreover, the

petitioner is planning to leave the country under the guise of

the said interim orders. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of

merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd

respondent further contends that the petitioner is not

entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ

petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :

8. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit and vacate

stay petition filed by the Respondent No.2 herein

clearly indicates that upon the requisition made by the
18
WP_515_2024
SN,J

Investigation Officer to the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, CCS DD, Hyderabad for issuance of Look Out

Circular against the Petitioner/A1, the concerned

Department had issued the Look Out Circular and after

completion of Investigation charge sheet has been filed

vide C.C.No.160/2024 and the case is pending before

the Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. Nowhere in the

counter affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent a specific

plea is taken that the Petitioner herein did not co-

operate with the investigation or a specific plea is

taken that the Petitioner is intending to avoid the court

proceedings though an application has been filed

before the concerned court for issuance of Non-Bailable

Warrant against the Petitioner and the other accused

stating that they have been absconding since the

registration of the said criminal case which submission

however is disputed by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Petitioner who contends that the

Petitioner is ready and willing and undertakes to co-
19

WP_515_2024
SN,J

operate with the conduct of the Court proceedings

including the trial.

9. This Court opines that the Look Out Circular

should be issued in exceptional circumstances and on

cogent reasons and the same cannot be permitted to be

issued in a mechanical manner.

10. A bare perusal of Sub-para J of Office

Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 (referred to and

extracted above) 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 this

clause J cast an obligation on the originating agency to

review the LOC on a quarterly/annual basis and submit

proposals for deletion of the same, the same however is

not followed strictly by the authorities concerned. In

the present case the LOC have been issued against the

Petitioner in the year 2023 and subsequently however

has not been reviewed as mandated at sub-para J of the

Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021.
20

WP_515_2024
SN,J

11. A bare perusal of Sub-para L of the circular

dt.22.02.2021 (referred to and extracted above) clearly

indicates that LOCs 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. This Court is of the firm opinion

that lookout circular can be issued on the specific

grounds stated in Sub-para L of the OM dt.22.02.2021

(referred to and extracted above). The ground used

against the Petitioners herein is that the Petitioner

would abscond and not co-operate with the Court

proceedings. This Court opines that the Police can

resort to LOC only in drastic contingencies and it is not

the case that the Petitioner herein would not co-operate

with the trial and the Court proceedings.
21

WP_515_2024
SN,J

12. The look out circular issued against the petitioner

is contrary to sub-para J and L of the Office

Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 and therefore, this

Court opines that the 2nd Respondent herein cannot

have any continuing reasons to interfere with the

Petitioner’s personal liberty and Petitioner’s right to

travel outside the country.

13. Few judgments of the Apex Court and other

Courts pertaining to right to liberty and lookout

circulars and the observations made there under :

A. The Apex Court in judgment reported in 2013 (15)

SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at

para 13 observed as under :

“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.”

B. The Apex Court in “MENAKA GANDHI VS. UNION

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER” reported in AIR 1978 SC 597,

and in “SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA
22
WP_515_2024
SN,J

(UOI) AND OTHERS” reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online

SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel

abroad is a part of a personal liberty.

C. The Apex Court way back in 1967, in Judgment

reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, in “Satwant Singh

Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer

held that the right to travel abroad falls within the

scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and that no person can be

deprived of his right to travel except according to the

procedure established by law.

D. In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy v State,

reported in 2013 SCC online Mad 4092, 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
23
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.

D. In the case of Rana Ayyub v Union of India and

another W.P. (CRL) 714/2022, reported in 2022 SCC

Online Del 961 the Delhi High Court at paras 12 and 13

of the said judgment observed as under:
24

WP_515_2024
SN,J

“12. 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.

13. 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.

E. In the case of Soumen Sarkar v State of Tripura,

represented by the Secretary, Home Department and
25
WP_515_2024
SN,J

others reported in 2021 SCC online Tri 143, the High

Court of Tripura on perusal of MHA’s Office Memorandum

dated 31.08.2010, stated that the reasons for opening LOC

must be given categorically. It was held that LOCs could

not be issued as a matter of course, but only when

reasons existed and the accused deliberately evaded

arrest or did not appear in the trial Court.

F. In the case of Karti P.Chidambaram v Bureau of

Immigration, reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 2229,

the Hon’ble Madras High Court observed as under:

“LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but when
reasons exist, where an accused deliberately evades
arrest or does not appear in the trial Court. The
argument of the learned Additional Solicitor
General that a request for Look Out Circular could
have been made in view of the inherent power of
the investigating authority to secure attendance
and cooperation of an accused is contrary to the
aforesaid circulars and thus, not sustainable.

74. It is, in the view of this Court, too late in the day to
contend that whether or not to issue an LOC, being a
executive decision, the same is not subject to judicial
review. It is now well settled that any decision, be it
26
WP_515_2024
SN,J

executive or quasi-judicial, is amenable to the power of
judicial review of the writ Court under
Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, when such decision has adverse
civil consequences. An LOC, which is a coercive
measure to make a person surrender and
consequentially interferes with his right of
personal liberty and free movement, certainly has
adverse civil consequences. This Court, therefore,
holds that in exercise of power of judicial review
under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ
Court can interfere with an LOC.

14. This Court is of the firm opinion that there is no

reason to allow the impugned lookout circular issued

against the Petitioner based on Crime No.211/2023, dt.

07.04.2023, on the file of Women Police Station, DD,

Hyderabad. This Court opines that a lookout circular

issued in exercise of inherent power of the

Investigating Authority to secure attendance and co-

operation of an accused as in the present case, is

contrary to sub-paras J and L of the circular dated

22.02.2021 (referred to and extracted above). An LOC

which is a coercive measure to make a person

surrender and consequentially interfere with his right of
27
WP_515_2024
SN,J

personal liberty and free movement certainly has

adverse civil consequences and the same should not be

resorted to in a routine manner except in compelling

and extraordinary circumstances. In the present case a

Notice U/s.41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code has

been issued by the Police and charge sheet has also

been filed and if the Police have apprehensions about

non-cooperation of the Petitioner in the conduct of

Court proceedings or trial it is always open to the Police

to make an appropriate application before the Court

concerned, but the Respondent Police cannot continue

the LOC for years.

15. In the case on hand admittedly the Petitioner is an

employee working in United States of America and the

offences alleged against the Petitioner are not grave

offences. They are offences under section 498-A, 406 of

IPC and Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By

virtue of opening an LOC against the Petitioner and

continuing the same indefinitely there is every chance

that the Petitioner would loose his job and would be put

to serious hardship.

28

WP_515_2024
SN,J

16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case and duly taking into

consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and

other High Courts in various judgments (referred to and

extracted above), and in the light of the discussion as

arrived at as above, the writ petition is allowed and the

respondents are directed to forthwith withdraw the

lookout circular issued against the Petitioner based on

Crime No.211 of 2023 dated 07.04.2023 on the file of

Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad,. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Dated: 26.02.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation