The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Lookout Circular [LOC] vide LOC Suspect from 2:342305 to 2342305 issued by the respondents 2 to 5 in the name of the Pelitroner i,e. Kokkonda Priyanka in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 on the ri|: of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad and further direct the respondent No. 6 to 8 to permit Petitioner to travel along with her children. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.SUNDARESAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 9: SRI N.BHUJANG! RAO, DEpUTy Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI RAMESH KADART SOLICITOR GEiNERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 252L4 OF 2o25 o5.t2.2025 Betweeu: Kokkonda Priyanka And Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Departmenl & 9 others Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by petitioner aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) in her name in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad. She seeks a consequential direction to set aside the said LOC and permit her along with children to travel abroad.

2. Petitioner states that she has been arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 6 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry t t ,l 2 Prohibition Act on the hle of Women Police Staticn, Nizamabad Town. It is statcd, her marriage was performed r n O4.03.2O18 and, immediately after the marriage, she joined her husband who was then working in Sweden on an onsitc assignment. Thereafter, the couple continued to reside abroad, and subsequently shifted their residence to the Un itod States of America, u.here they presently live in the StrLLe of Texas. Petitioner submits that she was blessed with two r:lLiidren, aged about 6 and 2 years, both of whom are studying ir sichool in the United States. She further states that she has l;er:n pursuing her higher education in the United States on F 1 '/isa, havir-rg commenced her studies as a dependent pr,rl iously and completed her Master's Degree in May 2025.

2.1. Petitioner contends that she cam(. to India on

06.06.2025 along with her two children. solely for t rt: purpose of completing ccrtain visa formalities connected to tr:r academic programme) and during her arrival at Bangalore Ai 'p,611 she u,zrs first informed about pendency of the above crir er: registercd against her. She asserts that until that momcnt, she had absolutely no knowledge about the complain, lodged by Respondent No. 10 or registration of Crime No. (r of 2023, nc.tr was she aware that a charge sheet had been filed,rElainst othr.r accused persons. She states that upon enquiry n acle through _) her parents after her arrival in India, she came to know that family elders had intervened and that a se ttlement styled as "Kulalapeddala Theermanam" had been executed on 29.06.2025 between her parents and parents of Respondent No. 10, wherein it was agreed that Respondent No. 1O and Accused No. I would obtain mutual divorce; parents of Respondent No. 10 had agreed to receive Rs. 11,5O,0O0/-, and that all pending cases, including the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, would be closed pursuant to the said settlement.

2.2. Petitioner further states that on 23.07.2025, she visited Nizamabad and approached Respondent No.5 - Investigating Ofhcer, and explained in person that she had no connection with the allegations; she informcd about the settlcment arrived at between the families and th:rt Respondent No. 1O had .agreed to withdraw criminal proceedings. Even at that time, no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been served on her, and none of the police ofhcials informed her regarding existence of LOC against her. It is stated, petitioner booked tickets on 17.O7.2025 to return to the United Sta[es along with her two children on 29.O7.2025, after completion of her F-1 Visa process. However, at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, they were detained by Respondent No. 8 on the ground of \i \ 4 LOC. She therefore, is stated to have contacted :he ofhce of Respondent No. 2 over Whats App, requesting :r,rmjssion to travel with her children, and only thereafter, on 02.O8.2025, she receivcd xerox copy of LOC and the notice under Siectron 41 A Cr.P.C.

2.3. Petitioner states that she obtained certified copies of thc crime records and the charge sheet and came tt knou, lhat police, alter investigation, hled charge sheet only against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 251 of 2023 belore the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, menritning thercin that a separale charge sheet would be hled againsr. Jrer. Despite tha[ assertion, no charge sheet was filed against her til1 date. She asserts that she has been falsely implicated, rvith a mala /rde intention to harass her and to extract mon3\/ br. taking undue advantage of the provisions of Section 49ll-A IpC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.4 . Petitioner contends that issuance of LOC is mechanical ar-rd without any pima.facie basis, prrrticulariy in vieu, of the fact that no charge sheet has been hled against her. She states that she had no knowledge whatsoever of lhe registration of crime and had never been served u,ir h any notice or rntrmation prior to her detention. She voluntarih approached 5 the Women Police Station, Nizamabad, and has been cooperating with the authorities. According to petitioner, the action of issuing and continuing LOC is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and is violative of her fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India. Continuation of LOC causes irreparable harm to her education, career and future prospects, and also gravely affects the welfare of her minor children whose schooling and residence are in the United States. She additionally states that her husband is undergoing severe mental tension due to her sudden detention and inability to return. She therefore, prays that Look Out Circular be set aside or suspended and that she be permitted to return to the United States along with her children.

3. Respondent No. 5, who is the Investigating Ofhcer in Crime No, 6 of 2023, fiLed a counter affidavit stating that crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 1O on 24.O1.2023, alieging matrimonial harassment; statutory procedure was followed insofar as issuance of notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is concerned; specifically, notices were issued to Accused 2, 3 and 5 on

24.92.2023 and a notice was issued to petitioncr (A-4) on

07.06.2025. In the course of investigation, passport particulars 6 of petitioner were obtained and recorded and, ha.ri.ng regard to the possibili[, of the petitioner leaving the jurisdir:ti6n, a request for issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) was adrlressed to the competent authority on 16.O2.2023.

3.i. Respondent No. 5 further contencis that after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was hlt:d being C.C. No. 251 ol 2023 against Accused 1 to 3 and 5, atrl a separate charge sheet in C.C. No. 1396 of 2025 against pe titioner (A-4), and that the criminal proceedings are thus bein g pursued in accordance with law. It is asserted that despite infcrmation and communication available to petitioner, she has ntt cooperated adequately with the investigating agency and has not appeared before the Trial Court through counsel or otherwise, It is also asserted that, at times, the whereabouts of petitic,n er were not available to the investigating agency despite her re,urn to India. Respondent No. 5 maintains that issuance of LOC was justified and lawful, being a necessary and proportionatr. measure to secure the presence of the accused for the F,urposes of investigation and tria1, and that revocation of LOC .vculd expose the prosecution to the risk of petitioner evading tlrr: process of law. ./ -7 7

3.2. It is emphasized that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available before the triai Court to seek permission to travel during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum to bypass the procedure and safeguards available in the trial Court. On these grounds, Respondent No. 5 urges that writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, hence, prays for its dismissal.

4. Respondent No. 10 - complainant similarly denies petitioner's averments and sets out the following contentions. Petitioner had knowledge of criminal proceedings and, notwithstanding that knowledge, intentionally evaded appearance before the trial Court. It is stated, settlement deed daled 29.06.2025 was executed only after petitioner came to India, therefore, execution of settlement cannot be relied upon as a conclusive bar to the proceedings; further, it is stated that terms of the settlement have not been complied with to date.

4.1. Respondent No. 1O contends that Permltting petitioner to leave India in the present circumstances will settlement terms and will also jeopardize compliance with prejudiciatly-affect administration of justice in the pcnding criminal proceedings. Although petitioner asserted academic 'l I I I I l I i I 8 and family hardships, such considerations cannol lle permitted to be used as a shield to avoid attendance in the c::iminal trial; rather, the absence of petitioner would necessa rily delay the trial and cause hardship to Respondent No. 1O who seeks prosecution of lhe allegations. It is stressed that. pr:titioner has been residing abroad for several years and that there is a real possibility that, ii allowed to leave the country, she may not return to facc thc trial.

4.2. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1O cont.ends lhat LOC was issued in accordance with law and in the legit nrate exercise o[ the powers of the competent authorities to prev]t1t evasion of the process of law. It is further stated that petitioner should have approached the trial Court to seek permission :o travel and that writ pctition is an attempt to obtain prematuro vacation of LOC outside the appropriate judicial forum. On tlrt:se grounds, Respondent No. 10 prays that Writ Petition be cis;missed and LOC be allor.r,cd to continue until such time the trial Court or the competent authority, is satished that petitioner-'si atlendance and the ends of justice are not prejudiced.

5. Fteard Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel for petitioner as u,ell as learned Government Pleader for Iiome for Respondents 1 to 5 and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Ierrned Deputy 9 Solicitor General on behalf of Respondents 6 to 9 and Sri Ramesh Kadari, learned counsel for Respondent No'10'

6. The facts reveal that petitioner is shown as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 6 of 2023 relating to alleged matrimonial harassment. It is not in dispute that she has been residing abroad since her marriage in 2018, except for short visits to India. It is also undisputed that petitioner came to know of the case only upon her arrival at Bangalore Airport on 06'06'2025 and that she thereafter, visited Nizamabad on 23'07 '2025 and met the Investigating Officer. Petitioner asserts that she was never servcd with the notice under Section 41-A, whereas respondents contend that notice dated 07 '06'2O25 was issued to her. The material does not establish that such notice was actually served on petitioner. The record further indicates that charge sheet filed initially did not include petitioner and only a subsequent charge sheet was filed, though petitioner asserts that no charge sheet has been hled against her' There is no dispute that petitioner was prevented from boarding flight on 2g.O7.2lo25 on account of LOC and that she obtained a copy of LOC and Section 41-A notice only on O2.O8'2O25' 7 . Petitioner piaced before the Court the factum of settlementdated2g.06.2025betweenthefamiliesofpetitioner I I I i \, \ \ l0 and Respondent No_ 10, wherein it was agre r,.l to resolve matrimonial disputes ancl close pending F,roceedings. Respondent No. 10 admits the settlement but asrierts that its terms have not been complied with. These conten irrns pertain to matrimonizrl issues and are matters to be z ddressed in appropria te proceed ings. 8 It is also to be notecl that petitioner h as given a clear undertaking in the affidavit that she is wi1lin61 {(, cooperate with the investigation and trial and shall app€.., r whenever required. On the other hand, respondents havr: not placed material to show that petitioner has deliberately eva 1t:d process after gaining knowledge of the case. Her visit to lLe Women Police Station on 23.O2.2025 stands admitted. politioner has also established Lhat she has academic commitments requiring her presence in the United States along with her mrnor children, and that continuation of LOC disrupts her education, schooling of her children and immigration status. Respondr:rrts do not dispute the fact that petitioner,s children and husband are residing abroad zrnd that petitioner has been ptrr s urng her studies there. 9 India is speculative The contention that petitioner may nor return to Adequate safeguards, includinr securlng her unde rtaking, can ensure her availability for trial. The criminal proceedings against petitioner remain pending and she expressed willingness to participate in the same. This Court therefore, finds that issuance and continuation of LOC in the present facts, particularly when petitioner voluntarily \ t approached the Investigating Officer, when no material is placed to establish absconding, when initial charge sheet did not even include her name, and when the effect of LOC is to impede her education and family life abroad, is not justihed. LOC, in the present circumstances, is disproportionate to the purpose sought to be served and is liable to be set aside, subject to conditions ensuring petitioner's participation in the criminal proceedings.

10. For the foregoing reasons, LOC issued against petitioner uide LOC Suspect No. 2342305 in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 on the hle of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad is hereby set aside. Respondents 6 to 8 are directed to permit peti[ioner and her chiidren to travel abroad. Petitioner shall fiie an undertaking before the trial Court within two weeks from today, undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required and to participate in the proceedings without fai1. She shall also furnish her overseas address, contact details and e mail to the Investigating Ofhcer t2 t\: and the trial Court. Subject to the above condit ons, the LOC shall remain cancelled.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, aliowtrd. No costs Consequently, the miscellaneous Apgrlications, if any shall stand closed. SD/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .' :rf' //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To

2. J. 4.

7. o.

9. 10 11 12 13 14 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Flyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Police Commir;sionerate, Nizamabad. The Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District, Nizartabad. The Station House Officer, Woman Police Station, Nizarrabad Town, Nizamabad. The Sub lnspector of Police, Woman Police Station, Nizr:rnabad Town, N izamabad. The Commissioner, Bureau of lmmigration, Ministry of Hore Affairs, Government of lndia, lmmigration, East Block, Vlll Level,'/ Sector, New Delhi. The lmmigration Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of lndia, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. The lmmigration Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, lndhira Gandhi lnternational Airport, New Delhi. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Home Affairs Scvernment of lndia, New Delhi. One CC to SRI PINGALI RAMESHWAR RAO, Advocate [CPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICIT()ll GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] One CC to SRI RAMESH KADARI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies PSK. DqI,' CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:0 511212025 iA 1 t. l' ,$ ,\ r:{v o)(\ .4 <{i' *,):.; :2' u: l-t ,t- ORDER WP.No.25214 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g 0\