Allowed

Katragadda Vijay Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024WP/1669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner following the registration of an FIR. The High Court held that the LOC was abused as the petitioner cooperated with investigation, the offence was not extraditable, and the circumstances did not justify restricting personal liberty. The court quashed the LOC and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner was quashed, and the Writ Petition was allowed.

Katragadda Vijay Krishna Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010028962024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3327]

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1669/2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Katragadda Vijay Krishna

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶11

1.YASWANTH GADE

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶13

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶14

2.B NARASIMHA SARMA

¶15

3.B NARASIMHA SARMA

¶16

4.B NARASIMHA SARMA

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.1669 of 2024

¶21

ORDER:-

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶23

Constitution of India seeking the following relief;

¶24

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not revoking/recalling the lookout circular issued against the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 438/2023 dt. 15.11.2023 on the file of the 4th respondent having intercepted him by Bureau of Immigration on 13.01.2024 and released by the concerned police duly serving notice under Sec. 41A of Cr P C on 13.01.2024 as highly illegal. arbitrary and violative of Art 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to revoke/recall the lookout Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with FIR No 438/2023 forthwith and pass…”

¶25

Case of the petitioner is that he is the permanent

¶26

resident of Tenali of Guntur District and he has been working as an Engineer in Sea Port at Fujairah, United

¶27

¶28

Arab Emirates since 2013. On 29.10.2020 his marriage

¶29

was performed with 6^th respondent who is working in Union Bank of India. 6^th respondent stayed with him in abroad happily only for some time and returned to India and stayed near her workplace. She never lived along with his family members. As there is no compatibility and some issues are there in between him and his wife, the relations between them have strained and they led to giving a report by her against him and his family members. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.438 of 2023 of Nuzvid Rural Police Station, was registered against him and his family members on 15.11.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after registration of the said FIR, the police served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on his family members, but no such notice was served on him. On coming to know of the registration of crime, he arrived by flight to ROI Airport, Hyderabad during early hours of 13.1.2024. There, during the immigration check, the authorities detained him stating that a Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued against him as he was involved in

¶30

¶31

Crime No.438 of 2023, registered by the Nuzvid Rural Police Station. On intimation, Nuzvid police personnel came and served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on him and obtained acknowledgment. In the said notice he was directed to appear on 19.1.2024 and accordingly he appeared and cooperated for the investigation. Then the petitioner requested the respondents 3 and 4 to revoke/recall the LOC issued against him since he is working as Engineer in UAE and he has to report for the duty. But the respondents expressed their inability to recall/revoke the LOC. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition

¶33

and prays to dismiss the same.

¶34

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶35

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 investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws if an accused is deliberately evading arrest or if not attending the trial Court despite

¶36

¶37

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 is not cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest. In W.P.No.12687 of 2022, dated

¶38

02.5.2022, this Court held as hereunder:

¶39

“POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions. It is trite that the recourse can be had for 1 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 816 = (2015) 3 ALT 1 5) issue of LOC only in extreme cases where the investigating agency establishes that the accused in cognizable cases deliberately evaded arrest or not appeared despite issuing of NBW and other coercive measures and also that there was every likelihood of accused absconding from the Country so as to not to submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned Criminal Court and thereby to evade arrest / trial and other criminal proceedings. In Sumer Singh Salkan‟s case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the High Court of Delhi reiterated the above aspect as to under what circumstance recourse to the LOC can be taken. 8. Be that it may, the present case is concerned,

¶40

¶41

admittedly, we are not at the stage of issuing of LOC since it was already issued and pending against the petitioners. However what is germane for consideration is whether the LOC can be allowed to be continued against the petitioners when in the charge-sheet filed by the police, they gave clean chit to them. To confirm whether the police laid charge-sheet and exonerated petitioners or not, this Court through Registrar (Judicial) called for relevant information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offices-cum-FAC JMFC Mobile Court, Nellore. Learned magistrate vide letter dated 29.04.2022 sent the relevant information stating that in Crime No.231/2021 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Police Station, Nellore laid charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 on 6 24.09.2021 while mentioning that he found no involvement of accused Nos.4 and 5 i.e., the petitioners herein and thereby not charge-sheeted them. Learned magistrate further intimated that the charge-sheet came up for consideration before him on 02.03.2022 and on perusal of the record he found prima facie case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 but found no incriminating material against the accused Nos.4 and 5 in the chargesheet and hence he issued notice to de facto complainant directing her appearance before the Court on 25.04.2022 for filing objections if any. Accordingly de facto complainant appeared before the Court on 25.04.2022 and sought time for filing protest petition and hence learned magistrate extended the time till 03.06.2022.”

¶42

¶43

By virtue of opening LOC, personal liberty of a 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. 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 causes or reasons whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or that he is evading arrest, LOCs are being opened 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 to opening the LOCs against the accused by 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.

¶44

In the case on hand, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

¶45

¶46

Act. The petitioner is working in UAE. Because of issuing LOC, there is every likelihood of the petitioner loosing his job and suffering 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 the personal liberty of the person would be effected. On mere registration of FIR for the offence under Section 498-A and other ancillary offences, the respondent/police if come to conclusion to open the LOC against the accused, it will affect his career. In fact, most of the cases would end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. In the case on hand, the case is at FIR stage. The question of absconding of the petitioner would not arise for the reason that the family members of the petitioner are residing in India. Further, it is only the petitioner who is working abroad. The petitioner has been questioned in the office of the respondent No.3 and there is no complaint that he did not cooperate during the enquiry conducted by the respondent No.3. In such case, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to issue LOC or to continue the LOC.

¶47

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

¶49

decision in Sumer Singh Saikan case stated supra, wherein it is held

¶50

“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 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

¶51

¶52

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.”

¶53

In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid case and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, opening of LOC against the petitioner herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence the LOC issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶54

Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶56

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶57

Dated: 05.3.2024 GR

¶58

¶59

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶60

WRIT PETITION No.1669 of 2024

¶61

Date:05.03.2024 GR

¶62

Katragadda Vijay Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katragadda Vijay Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkara Veera Venkata Naga Suresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarlagadda Krishna Chandu Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr Dharani Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Veera Venkata Satya Rao Sridharala Vs the State of Ap

P Sanjay Vs the State of Ap