Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kedari Swaroopa Rani vs Assistant on 25 February, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010409872025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 21219/2025
Between:
1. KEDARI SWAROOPA RANI, W/O. MANISH, PASSPORT
NO. NG111824, 6THFRIMLEY AVENUE,
MIDDLESBROUGH, T538PX ,CLEAVE LAND, UNITED
KINGDOM. REP. BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. VANGA LAKSHMI, W/O.
ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-
16-9/A, RIKSHA CENTRE, BARAMPET,
NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
2. BANDI NAGA LAKSHMI PRASANTHI, W/O.BALA SWAMI
HOUSE NO.2968, WASHINGTON STREET. CHANDLER,
ARIZONA-85286 USA. REP. BY HER GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. VANGA LAKSHMI, W/O.
ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-
16-9/A, RIKSHA CENTRE, BARAMPET,
NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION MINISTRY AFFAIRS, UNION
OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION)
EAST BLOCK, VIII, LEVEL -V, SECTOR-1, RK PURAM,
NEW DELHI.
2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A.P
SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY,
VELAGAPUDI POST,THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADES
4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, O/O.
SRK, J
2 WP No.21219 of 2025
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME
INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, APDGP HEAD
QUARTERS 1ST FLOOR MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPET,
PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II- TOWN POLICE STATION,
NARASARAO PET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
7. INSPECTOR OF POLICE INTELLIGENCE, ATTACHED TO
THE OFFICER OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.
SRK, J 3 WP No.21219 of 2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.21219 of 2025 Order:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer;
"....pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing lookout notice against the 1ST Petitioner in connection with Crime No. 126/2022 of II- town Police, Narasaraopet i.e., 6TH Respondent Police station for alleged offences under Section 498-A of IPC R/w with 34 and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further action of the respondents more particularly 6TH respondent in obstructing and threatening Arrest of the petitioners and their implication in false cases for their free entry and exit to India as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the lookout notice issued against the Petitioners in connection with the case and Crime No. 126/2022 for alleged offences under Section 498A of IPC R/w with 34 and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and pass."
2. Case of the petitioners herein is that the respondent authorities opened a Look Out Circular against the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 126 of 2022 of II Town Police Station, Narasaraopet, registered for the offences punishable under SRK, J 4 WP No.21219 of 2025 Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner No. 1 is a private employee working in London, and her presence there is very much necessary for the continuation of her employment; otherwise, her employer may terminate her services. Petitioner No. 2 is also employed as a Software professional in TCS in Maricopa County, State of Arizona, United States, and her presence is likewise necessary at her workplace. Except for the aforesaid crime, there are no other criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. Moreover, the crime registered against the petitioners pertains to Section 498A IPC 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 petitioners is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioners 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 SRK, J 5 WP No.21219 of 2025 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 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 1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022 SRK, J 6 WP No.21219 of 2025 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."
7. By virtue of opening the LOC, the 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 SRK, J 7 WP No.21219 of 2025 be issued. In the case on hand, the petitioners herein are accused in Crime No. 126 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4 in the said case. They are married sisters of A1, when the petitioners are carrying on their profession abroad for their livelihood, by virtue of the opening of a Look Out Circular (LOC), there is every likelihood that they lose their 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 petitioners herein to travel abroad.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 SRK, J 8 WP No.21219 of 2025 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 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 petitioners herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence the LOC issued against the petitioners herein is hereby quashed.
SRK, J 9 WP No.21219 of 2025
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:25.02.2026 Asr SRK, J 10 WP No.21219 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.21219 of 2025 Date:25.02.2026 Asr