Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy set aside a Look Out Circular issued by the state police against a husband accused in a matrimonial complaint alleging dowry harassment under Section 85 BNS (earlier Section 498-A IPC) and allied offences, after the circular prevented him from travelling abroad for employment. The Court directed that the LOC be quashed, noting that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation and court process and that no coercive warrant was pending. Taking note of a recurring practice of opening LOCs in a mechanical manner in Section 498-A cases, the Court said such restraints on travel are meant for exceptional situations involving serious offences, threats to national security, or similar public-interest concerns, not routine matrimonial disputes.

The writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in issuing a Look-Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner in connection with a criminal case registered for offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 498-A IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner, employed as an Electrical Technician in Dubai, was accused by his wife in a matrimonial dispute. Following registration of the crime, he appeared before the police, was enlarged on bail, and subsequently returned abroad. A charge sheet was filed and the matter was taken cognizance of by the competent Magistrate.

Also Read: PIL In Supreme Court Challenges New Income Tax Law Allowing Searches Of Digital Devices And “Virtual Digital Space”

The petitioner later travelled to India to attend proceedings in a family court matter. Upon arrival at the airport, he was apprehended on the ground that an LOC had been issued against him and was released on furnishing sureties. He contended that he had been cooperating with the investigation and court proceedings, that no non-bailable warrant or coercive process was pending, and that the LOC prevented him from resuming employment abroad. The respondents opposed cancellation of the LOC on the ground that there was a likelihood of the petitioner avoiding judicial process.

The Court observed that “Look Out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s fundamental right of movement.” It recorded that by virtue of opening an LOC, “personal liberty of the person is curtailed.” The Court further stated that “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.”

The Court noted the manner in which LOCs were being issued and recorded: “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 stated that “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.”

The Court further recorded: “If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued.” In the present case, it observed, “In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.”

Referring to constitutional considerations, the Court stated: “These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It further recorded: “By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected.”

With reference to the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines dated 22.02.2021, the Court noted that LOCs could be issued in exceptional cases where departure would be detrimental to sovereignty, security, integrity, bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests of India, or where larger public interest so required. It then recorded: “Going by the stipulation in the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, petitioner would not in any way come within the purview of the parameters that have been laid down in Sub-para (L) of the Circular.”

Also Read: Trial Courts Can Recall Witnesses Under S.311 CrPC Even After Case Is Reserved For Judgment: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court recorded, “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 Circular issued against the petitioner would not be required. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner 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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: G Seena Kumar

For the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India; Government Pleader for Home

Case Title: Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. Union of India and Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010037382026

Case Number: Writ Petition No.2269 of 2026

Bench: Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy