Deshmukh Firoz Ali Khan Vs the Union of India

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in issuing Look-out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.581 of 2025 of Rayachoty UG Police Station, Rayachoty, Annamayya (Chittoor) district, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as illegal and arbitrary and

¶19

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

consequently to set aside the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner.

¶22

Case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a Tailor in KUWAIT for the past 20 years. He married one Deshmukh Sara Khanam on 11.04.2010 at Rayachoty as per Islam custom and rites. His marriage was registered with the AP State Waqf Board even prior to the solemnization of the marriage. Subsequently, they were blessed with a daughter. Thereafter, when both of them came to India, petitioner’s wife refused to come back to KUWAIT and chose to stay with her father, thereby refusing to continue the conjugal life. Having no other go, petitioner filed a suit in OS No.146 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayachoty seeking dissolution of the marriage and the said suit is pending for adjudication. While so, petitioner’s wife filed a case against the petitioner and his family members in Crime No.581 of 2025 of Rayachoty UG Police Station, Rayachoty, Annamayya (Chittoor) district, for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Police filed charge sheet in the above crime stating that the petitioner herein is absconding, and according to the petitioner, the same is pending for registration. Petitioner further states that, in the meantime, he came to know that respondent Nos.1 to 3 issued Look-out Circular against him at the instance of respondent Nos.4 to 6, thereby restraining his movements and preventing him from visiting India.

¶23

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as a Tailor in KUWAIT for the past 20 years and that he is the sole breadwinner for his family, which consists of his aged mother, and on account of LOC issued against him, the petitioner is unable to visit India and if the petitioner is confined in India and restrained from leaving to KUWAIT to attend his job, the entire family would be starved.

¶26

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).

¶27

“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 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

¶28

1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022

¶29

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC.

¶32

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.”

¶33

He also placed reliance on a decision in Mannoj Kumar Jain & another v. Union of India & others² , wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22).

¶34

“20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Sub-paragraph J of the OM dated 22.02.2021 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 these clauses cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a

¶35

2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022

¶36

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶37

5

¶38

quarterly / annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, this is sadly found to be absent in most cases. Once a Look Out Circular is issued, it remains alive and kicking for almost all times to come. This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. The Banks have been given untrammeled powers to issue, use and exploit the lockin power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law to the person at the receiving end of it. The expressions "... detrimental... to the economic interest of India" in the concerned OM is sufficient to sharpen the talons of a vindictive Bank to clip the wings of a vulnerable prey (in the metaphoric sense). The Writ Court hence can and should step in to check such unregulated abuse of power by Banks where the facts demand relief. 21. In view of the above reasons, the respondent No.8 Indian Overseas Bank cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country. The interference sought to be imposed by way of the Look Out Circular is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The CBI Courts, where the cases are pending, are free to pass orders or impose conditions as the Courts may deem fit. The petitioners have not claimed any reliefs against those proceedings in the writ petition. This Court however sees no reason to allow the impugned Look Out Circular to remain or be used

¶39

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶40

6

¶41

against the petitioners in the absence of any acceptable apprehension, let alone evidence, shown on behalf of the Bank.

¶42

WPA 22748 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned Look Out Circular issued by the respondent No.8 Bank. The respondent No.8 and the other respondents shall not continue to give any further effect to the Look Out Circular which would have the effect of preventing the petitioners to travel outside India. The writ petition and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.”

¶43

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circular is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioner avoiding judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶44

Heard. Perused the record.

¶45

In the case on hand, petitioner states that he has been working as a Tailor in KUWAIT for the past 20 years and that he is the sole breadwinner for his family, which consists of his aged mother, and on account of LOC issued against him, he is unable to visit India and if he is confined in India and restrained from leaving to KUWAIT to attend his job, the entire family would be starved. In Crime No.581 of 2025, the police filed charge sheet stating that the petitioner herein is absconding and the same is not yet taken cognizance by the Court. Petitioner states that he will cooperate with the Investigating Agency and defend his case.

¶46

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶47

7

¶48

At present, there is no NBW or any coercive process pending against the petitioner. It is essential for the petitioner herein to travel to KUWAIT on his tailoring work. Look Out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s Fundamental Right of movement.

¶49

Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, 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. 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 is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused of 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, 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. In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 85 read with 3(5) of the BNS (Section 498-A IPC old) 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. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the

¶50

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶51

8

¶52

Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. Most of the cases under matrimonial offences may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.

¶53

Sub-para (L) of the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt), dated 22.02.2021, indicates that Look-Out Circulars 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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶57

9

¶58

Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner would not be required. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶60

_______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶61

Date:10.03.2026 Nsr

¶62

SRK, J WP No.5855 of 2026

¶63

10

¶64

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY