Look-Out Circulars Meant for Grave Offences; Cannot Be Issued Mechanically In 498-A IPC Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Police
Says travel ban violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India, where accused cooperated with trial
Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against an accused in a matrimonial dispute, holding that mechanical issuance of LOCs in cases under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when the accused is cooperating with the investigation and trial.
The Court strongly deprecated the growing practice of issuing LOCs in a routine and mechanical manner in matrimonial cases, observing that such action can severely damage careers, particularly of persons employed abroad, and amounts to an unwarranted curtailment of personal liberty.
The bench thus allowed a writ petition filed by an overseas employee, who was prevented from travelling back to his workplace in the United Arab Emirates due to an LOC issued in connection with a dowry harassment case registered by his wife.
A bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed, “…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 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 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 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”.
Advocate G Seena Kumar appeared for the petitioner and Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the petitioner’s wife (complainant) lodged an FIR under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier Section 498-A IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner appeared before the Mahila Police Station upon receiving notice, was released on bail, and returned to Dubai. A charge sheet was later filed, and the criminal case was pending trial.
On 14-01-2026, when the petitioner travelled to India to attend family court proceedings, he was stopped at Visakhapatnam Airport on the basis of an LOC issued against him. Although he was later released on furnishing sureties, the subsisting LOC prevented him from returning to Dubai, threatening his employment.
The petitioner contended that the LOC was issued without notice, despite his full cooperation with the investigation and regular appearance before courts. He argued that the continuation of the LOC was arbitrary and would result in irreparable loss by jeopardising his overseas employment.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that cancellation of the LOC could enable the petitioner to evade the judicial process.
The High Court noted that no non-bailable warrant or coercive process was pending against the petitioner and that he had consistently cooperated with the investigation and court proceedings.
Referring to the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 22-02-2021, the Court held 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” .
Therefore, holding that the continuation of the LOC was unjustified and unconstitutional, the High Court quashed the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner, enabling him to travel abroad for employment purposes.
Cause Title: X v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:3446]
Petitioner: G Seena Kumar, Advocate.
Respondent: Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, GP for Home, Advocate.