APHC010098392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5855 OF 2026 Between:

Deshmukh Firoz Ali Khan ...PETITIONER AND The Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:

1. Dy. Solicitor General of India

2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 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

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

Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing