PARUCHURI NARESH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 herein in initiating and maintaining the Look Out Circular Regular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025, against the petitioner with the immigration authorities in connection with Crime No. 188 of 2025 on the file of the 4th respondent police station dated 13.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, though the crime in FIR No. 188 of 2025was challenged before this Hon'ble Court and thereby preventing the petitioner at immigration authorities at entries and exit points in India from travelling abroad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and oppose to all cannons of justice consequentially, suspend the operation of the circular i.e. the Look Out Circular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 initiated by the 5th respondent upon the request of the 4th respondent in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025 forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 of the circular i.e. the Look Out Circular Regular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 initiated by the 5th respondent upon the request of the 4th respondent in FIR No. 188 of 2025 dated 13.11.2025 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to permit the Petitioner to Implead the 3 Proposed Respondents No.6 and 7 as Party Respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.6770 of 2026, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B S N NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.6770 of 2026 ORDER: - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein initiating and maintaining the Look Out Circular Regular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025, against the petitioner with the Immigration Authorities in connection with Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the 4th respondent police station dated

13.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, through the crime in FIR No.188 of 2025 was challenged before this Hon’ble Court and thereby preventing the petitioner at immigration authorities at entries and exit points in India from travelling abroad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and oppose to all cannons of justice consequentially, suspend the operation of the circular i.e., the Look Out Circular LOC No.2026403054 dated 17.01.2026 initiated by the 6th respondent upon the request of the 4th respondent in FIR No.188/2025 dated 13.11.2025 forthwith…”

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner filed a case against him along with family members before the 4th respondent police station with several matrimonial allegations on

13.11.2025. After receipt of the same, the 5th respondent police registered the crime in FIR No.188 of 2025, dated 13.11.2025 for the offence under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after knowing about the registration of crime and subsequent charge sheet, he approached the Court by way of filing an application in Criminal Petition 5 No.1325 of 2026 under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.). The 4th respondent police without application of executive mind registered the crime and also went to an extent issuing Look Out Circular bearing No.2026403054 on 17.01.2026 by the 6th respondent after issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he approached the Court having jurisdiction at United Kingdom dissolution of marriage and the same was pending for orders. He further would contend that the very issuance of LOC itself shows that the police are acting to the tunes of the politicians at the behest of his wife and further maintaining the LOC even after issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in the crime is highly objectionable.

4. The learned Central Government Counsel and the learned Government Pleader opposed the petition and prays to dismiss the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel and learned Government Pleader for Department of Home, and perused the material available on record.

6. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts as extracted herein under: (1) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi1, the Apex Court at 6 para No.13 observed as herein under: “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (2) In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India2, the Apex Court held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant Para No.5 is extracted herein under: “5. Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passport may be issued or refused or canceled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.”