Rukmini Korrapati Vs the State of Ap

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAG WRIT PETITION NO: 32492 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rukmini Korrapati, W/o. Late Krishnamurthy, Aged 63 years, Permanent resident of Arun Apartments, Flat No 306, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500004, presently residing temporary at 12 Treeble Ct, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406, U.S.A. Represented by her General Power Attorney (GPA) Gangavarapu Rambabu son of G. Koteswara Rao, aged 62 years resident of 14-21, Jhansi Arcade, Ilird Floor, Main Road, Poranki Rural, Penamaluru Mandal Krishna District - 521 137, State of Andhra Pradesh. Aadhaar No. 2262 4188 1681

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police,, Kakinada, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Samalkot P.S., Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Union of India, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home^Affairs Represented by its Commissioner, Immigration East Block VIII Level V Sector IRK Puram, New Delhi.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 being originating agency in issuing a Look-out Circular notifying the Petitioners name in the Airports in relation to Crime No. 83 of^{2023ofSamalkotP.S.of} Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to withdraw the said LOC issued against the Petitioner in relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent police station to enable the petitioner tp travel to India, on 31-12-2023.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation /execution of Look-out Circular notifying the Petitioners name in the Airports In relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4th Respondent pending disposal of this petition as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 being originating agency to address a letter to the Immigration Authorities immediate effect not to execute the LOC issued against^the Petitioner in relation to Crime No. 83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the 4**^ Respondent police station to enable the petitioner to travel to India on 31-12-2023.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ROSEDAR S.R.A

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI JUPUDI

¶21

V.K.YAGNADUTT (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010629472023

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3329]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 32492/2023

¶30

Between:

¶31

Rukmini Korrapati ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of Ap and Others

¶34

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.ROSEDARS.R.A

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶39

JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶40

2

¶41

^ ORDER:

¶42

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226^{oftheConstitutionof} India, claiming the following relief:

¶43

“To declare the action of the respondents in issuing Look Out Circular notifying the petitioners name in the Airports^inrelationto Crime No.83 of 2023 of Samalkot P.S. of Kakinada District on the file of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative^ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the said LOC issued against the petitioner in relation to Crime No.83 of 2023 on the file of the 4 th respondent police station.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents.

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioners straight away takes this Court through the order, dated 30.10.2019, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16731 of 2019, as the facts and^{circumstancesofthis} case are similar to the present case.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute^{thesubmission} made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Relevant paragraph of the order passed in W.P.No.16731 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019 is extracted hereunder;

¶47

3

¶48

Turning to the facts of the present case, the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate is stayed by the High^Court in CrI.R.C No.917 of 2019, thereby the Magistrate Court proceed with the trial against the petitioner, question of avoidance of trial by the petitioner as on date, does not arise, but the authority without applying their mind^issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitioner, therefore, the action of respondents is illegal and contrary to guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in Vikram Sharma (cited supra) and law laid down by various courts. Hence, the Red Corner notice is liable to be recalled. 13. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and Madras and Delhi High Courts in two other judgments, I find keeping the look out notice alive, even after^filing of charge sheet against the petitioner, despite grant^ofstayof ail proceedings against the petitioner in CrI.R.C 917^of2019 dated 18.09.2019, is a clear illegality and hence, I find that it is a fit case to direct the 3rd respondent to recall^thered corner notice, since keeping it alive is an arbitrary^exercise of power, for no reason.

¶49

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing^3rd respondent to recall the red corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week^fromthe date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid^order,this Writ Petition is also allowed of in terms of the order^{dated30.10.2019} passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16731 of 2019.

¶51

4

¶52

/

¶53

Further the respondents/competent authority are directed^{torecallthered} y corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16731 of2019tothis order.

¶54

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶55

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

The Principal Secretary, Fiome Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶59

The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh.

¶60

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada Rural,^Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶61

The Station House Officer, Samalkot P.S., Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶62

The Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, Immigration East Block VIII Level V Sector, IRK Puram New Delhi.

¶63

One CC to Sri Rosedar S.R.A, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagnadutt, Central Govt. Counsel[OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies.

¶64

(Along with a copy of order dated 30.10.2019 in W.P.No.16731 of 2019 to this order)

ssb

high court

DATED;08/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.32492 of 2023

allowing the W.P. Without costs

¶71

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHV

¶72

Writ Petition No.16731 of 2019

¶73

ORDER:

¶74

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, to issue writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents in withdrawing Red Corner Notice/Look out notice issued against the petitioner, despite the written representation dated 05.10.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw Red Corner notice/Look out^noticeissued against this petitioner. 2. It is alleged that based on the report filed by sister-in-law^of the petitioner dated 12.03.2018, Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, registered a crime against the petitioner in Crime No. 119 of 2018. In the said crime, his elder brother is arrayed as 1®^ accused, while the petitioner was arrayed as 4“^ accused and parents of the petitioner including^mediators were all arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3,'5, 6 and 7. On the basis of the above crime, police took up investigation and filed charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla against the other accused, while deleting the name of the petitioner^andtwo others, after obtaining necessary approval from the superior police officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Police officer and at that stage the sisterin-law of the petitioner filed protest petition and on the basis of enquiry conducted in the protest petition in Crl.M.P 286^of 2019ⁱⁿ C.C No.70 of 2019 cognizance was taken for the offence

¶75

2

¶76

MSM, J wp_16731_2019

¶77

punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) and other section against the petitioner. However, the order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C and other offences against this petitioner is challenged in Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019 before this Court and this Court by order dated 18.09.2019 was pleased to pass an order, granting stay of all further proceedings against 5th accused/petitioner herein. Despite grant of stay, the respondents issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitioner.

¶78

It is the contention of the petitioner that he was never in the company of the other accused. He was studying B.Tech at Visakhapatnam during the period of alleged commission of offence. The petitioner has completed M.S Operations Research in Columbia University, New York and at present he is working in New York. 4. The petitioner though submitted representation dated 05.10.2019, the respondents did not consider the representation and it is pending for consideration before the authorities concerned. Therefore he filed the present petition to declare the inaction on the part of respondents to withdraw the Red Corner notice/Look out notice, issued against this petitioner i.e. 5th accused in C.C 70 of 2019.

¶79

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during hearing, reiterated the contentions, while drawing the attention of this Court to an unreported judgment in Rajesh Sharma and others v.

¶80

3

¶81

MSM, J wp_16731_2019

¶82

State of Uttar Pradesh and another and on the strength^ofthe principle laid down therein, requested to pass appropriate order, recalling the Red Corner notice/Look out notice and requested to issue appropriate direction to the respondents, enabling the petitioner to come back to India.

¶83

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, supported issuance of Red Corner notice/Look out notice,^while contending that the petitioner shall make a representation^before the authorities concerned and considering such representation, 3''‘i respondent will pass appropriate orders, withdrawing^thelookout notice, if they satisfy that there is no interference with the investigation and extending cooperation for the trial^ofthecaseand requested to dismiss the petition, at the stage of^admission.

¶84

It is an undisputed fact, that the sister-in-law of the petitioner K. Sandhya Rani, lodged a report with the police, on the basis of the same, a crime was registered in Crime^No.119of2018 and later after completion of entire investigation, the investigating agency, concluded that the petitioner did commit no offence along with accused Nos.6 and 7 and filed charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate after obtaining necessary approval^from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and thus, the petitioner^was not an accused before the Magistrate. On account of filing protest petition by the sister-in-law of the petitioner, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section^498-AofI.P.C

4

MSM, J wp_16731_2019

4^

against the petitioner also, however, the same was stayed by this Court in Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019 by order dated 18.09.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be not an accused as on date, on account of the stay granted by this Court. The respondents issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitione r, so as to disable him from entering into moving out of the country. The petitioner made a representation dated 05.10.2019 to withdraw the notices, as the entire investigation is completed and question of extending co-operation of the petitioner, does not arise. But the representation is kept pending for the last many days^andnoorder has been passed till date.

¶89

Red Corner notice can be issued only in certain circumstances. But the petitioner is working at New York, on account of pendency of Red Corner notice/look out notice, the petitioner is unable to come back to India, apprehending^hisarrest in connection with the above calendar case. The Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another issued considered guidelines as to when Red Corner notice can be issued in a case punishable under Section 498-A of l.P.C and made it clear as follows: “arrest in an offence under Section 498-A of l.P.C^should be only after recording reasons and express approval from the Superintendent of Police. In respect of relatives who are ordinarily residing outside India, the matter should proceed only if the Investigating Officer is convinced that arrest is necessary for fair investigation. In such cases impounding of passport or issuance of red corner notice should be avoided. Procedure under Section 14 of the Protection of Women from

r

5

MSM, J wpJ6731_2019

Domestic Violence Act, 2005, of counseling .should be made mandatory before registration of a case under Section 498-A ofl.P.C”.

¶94

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, issue of red corner notice against the family members of the husband of the victim of an offence punishable under^Section498- A of I.P.C is quashed. However, the Apex Court and the other courts laid down certain guidelines as to when such^aredcorner notice is to be issued. Based on the guidelines, issued^inSumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and others^, the Delhi High

¶95

Court observed as follows;

¶96

Look-out-Circular issued against the petitioner shall^{bewithdrawnwithin} 24 hours ofgiving undertaking by the petitioner.

¶97

One of the questions raised in the reference are as^under:

¶98

What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating^agency before opening a Look-out-circular?

¶99

The questions are answered as under:

¶100

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused u'fli' deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the^{trialcourtdespite} NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

¶101

B. The Investigating Ofifcer shall make a written request^for LOC^tothe ofifcer as notiifed by the circular of Ministry of Home^{Affairs,giving} details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent ofifcer^{aloneshallgive} directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this^respect.

¶102

C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join^{investigationby} appearing before I.O. Or should surrender before the^{courtconcernedor} should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued^againsthim. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC^&explainthat LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn^bythe authority that issued and can also be rescinded by^{thetrialCourtwhere} case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned^{policestationonan} application by the person concerned.

¶103

(2010) DMC 666

¶104

MSM, J wp_l 6731_ 2019

¶105

6

¶106

D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts'jurisdiction in ajjirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation ofNBWs or afifrming NBWs.

¶107

In C.Jeyashekar and another V. The Deputy

¶108

Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai and 3 others, the Madras High Court held that when the investigation of the case is culminated by filing a charge-sheet and consequent registration of calendar case, there is no question of keeping the look out notice alive, which was issued to ensure presence during the course of investigation. In view of the conclusions arrived by the Madras High Court in C.Jeyashekar and another V. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai and 3 others is directly applicable to the present facts of the case, since investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the accused, deleting the name of the petitioner, cognizance order taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and other offences is already stayed by this Court. Therefore, keeping the red corner notice alive after completion of investigation is an arbitrary exercise. 10. In Cheruvathur Chakkutty Thampi @ C.C Thampi v. Union of India and others the Madras High Court adverted to the law declared by the Delhi High Court. Based on judgment^ofDelhi High Court in Vikram Sharma V. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued guidelines for issue of LOC, dated 27.10.2010; the guidelines are as follows:

7

a)

MSM, J wp_I6731_2019

The request for opening an LOC would be made by originating agency to Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration (Bol),^EastBlock- VIII, R.K Puram, New Delhi - 66 (Telefax; 011-2619244) in the proforma enclosed:

¶114

b) The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued^withthe approval of an officer not below the rank of

¶115

i. Deputy Secretary to the Government of; or

¶116

ii. Joint Secretary in the State Government; or

¶117

iii. District Magistrate of the District concerned;^or

¶118

iv. Superintendent of Police (SP) of the District concerned;^or

¶119

V. SP in CBI or an officer of equivalent lever working in CBI; or

¶120

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^{levelintheDirectorateof} Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Excise and Customs; or viii. Assistant Director of IB/Bol; or ix. Deputy Secretary of R&Aw; or x. An officer not below the level of Superintendent of Police in Nationeil Investigation Agency; or

¶121

xi. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate;^or

¶122

xii. Protector of Emigrants in the office of the Protectorate of Emigrant or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the^{GovernmentofIndia;or}

¶123

xiii. Designated officer to Interpol

¶124

Further LOCs can also be issued as per directions of any Criminal Court

¶125

in India.

¶126

c) 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.

¶127

d) The contact details of the originator must be provided^incolumnVI of the enclosed proforma. The contact telephone/mobile^numberof the respective control room should be mentioned to^ensureproper communication for effective follow up action.

¶128

e)

¶129

Care must be taken by the originating agency to ensure that complete identifying particulars of the person, in^respectof whom the LOC is to be opened, are indicated in the Proforma^mentioned above. It should be noted that an LOC cannot be opened^unlessa minimum of three identifying parameters, as given in^theenclosed Proforma, apart from sex and nationality, are available. However, LOC can also be issued if name and passport particulars of the person concerned are available. It is the responsibility of the originator to constantly review the LOC requests and proactively provide additional parameters to minimize harassment^togenuine passengers.

¶130

f) The legal liability of the action taken by the immigration^authorities in pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating^agency.

¶131

g) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences^underIPCor 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/detaine^d.

¶132

MSM, J wp_16731_2019

¶133

8

¶134

h) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or__ other penal laws, the LOG 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.

¶135

i) The LOG will be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue and name of the subject shall be automatically removed from the LOG thereafter unless the concerned agency requests for its renewal within a period of one year. With effect from 1.1.2011, all LOGs with more than one year validity shall be deemed to have lapsed unless the agencies concerned specifically requests Bol for continuation of the names in the LOG. However, this provision for automatic deletion after one year shall not be applicable in following

¶136

cases:

¶137

a. Ban-entry LOGs issued for watching arrival of wanted persons (which have a specific duration); b. loss of passport LOGs (which ordinarily continue till the validity of the document); c. LOGs regarding impounding of passports; d. LOGs issued at behest of Gourts and Interpol. j) In exceptional cases , LOGs can be issued without complete parameters and /or case details against GI suspects, terrorists, antinational elements, etc in larger national interest.

¶138

k) The following procedure will be adopted in case statutoiy bodies like the NGW, the NHRG and the National Gommission for Protection of Ghildren’s Rights request for preventing any Indian/foreigner^from leaving India. Such requests along with full necessary^{factsarefirst} to be brought to the notice of law enforcement agencies like the police. The S.P. concerned will then make the request for issuance of notice upon an assessment of the situation, and strictly in terms of the procedure outlined for the purpose. The immigration/emigration authorities will strictly go by the communication received from the officers authorized to open LoGs as detailed in the para 8(b) above.

¶139

In Suresh Nanda V. Union of India?, after referring judgment of Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of^India? observed;

¶140

Suresh Nanda V. Union of India?, after referring

¶141

There has to be application of mind by the authority^{totherelevant} factors that would enable it to come to the conclusion that the impounding of the passport is in the interests of the general public. And then again, in the context of the criminal case which is still under investigation, this cannot be an opinion formed at one point in time. The public interest element will vary depending on the stage of the investigation. It cannot be said that as long as the investigation is not complete, it is not in public interest to release a passport. That would be giving too wide a power to the authority.

¶142

^2010 IV AD (Del) 53 -’(1978) 1 see 248

MSM, J wp_l6731_2019

•i

9

In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K'*, a member of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislate Assembly was detained by the Police^whileonhis way to attend a session of the assembly. By the time^{thepetitionfiled} by him challenging his detention was heard, he had^already been released. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court examined the case and concluded that his detention was unlawful. It then proceeded to award him compensation after observing:

¶147

"Custodians of law and order should not become depredators^ofcivil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct.^{Howeverthetwo} police officers, the one who arrested him and the one^whoobtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower^rungsofthe ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government^{of Jammu} and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely^whereandwith whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt^that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated^{withimpunity.} Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately^{compensated,he} must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation^by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established^by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar^ and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India®. When a person^comesto us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned^with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the^{invasionmaynot} be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate^thevictim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider^this an appropriate case."

¶148

Turning to the facts of the present case, the cognizance^order passed by the Magistrate is stayed by the High Courtⁱⁿ Crl.R.C No.917 of 2019, thereby the Magistrate Court proceed^withthetrial against the petitioner, question of avoidance of trial by the petitioner as on date, does not arise, but the authority^without applying their mind issued Red Corner notice/Look out notice against the petitioner, therefore, the action of respondents^isillegal and contrary to guidelines issued by Ministry of Home^Affairs in Vikram Sharma (cited supra) and law laid down by various courts. Hence, the Red Corner notice is liable to be^recalled.

¶149

hi985) 4 see 677 hl983) 3 SeR 508 ‘AIR 1984 se 1026

10

MSM, J wp_]6731_20]9

41

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and Madras and Delhi High Courts in two other judgments, I find keeping the look out notice alive, even after filing of charge sheet against the petitioner, despite grant of stay of all proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.R.C 917 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019, isi a clear illegality and hence, I find that it is a fit case to direct the 3^d respondent to recall the red corner notice, since keeping^italive ISi an arbitrary exercise of power, for no reason.

¶154

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing 3'-d respondent to recall the red corner notice/look out notice issued against the petitioner herein, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶155

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶156

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶157

Dated 30.10.2019 Rvk

¶158

Note: Issue C.C by 04.11.2019 b/o. Rvk

Rukmini Korrapati v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini Korrapati v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damarla Venkata Naga Siva Vs the Reserve Bank of India

M/s. Srinesh Industries, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited

Betharaju Manjula Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kiran T Vs Union of India

Ab Constructions and Co. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Grr Enterprises Vs Sri Shashibhushan Kumar, IAS