1. Phaniram Bhaskar Sumanan v. The State of Telangana

Circular (Red Corner Notice) pending against the petitioners in spite of the proceedings being quashed in C.C.No.104B of 2011 on the file of X Metropolitan lvtagistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of Crime No.455 of 2011 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently vacate the Look Out Circular (Red Corner Notice). l.A. NO: I OF 20'l5r[p_wtP,__N-a532!_aE29l!) 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 direct the resprondents to close the Look Out Circular (Red Corner Notice) pending against the petitioners in respect of C.C.No.1048 of 2011 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of Crime No.455 of 2011 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Pr:titioners: SRI SHREEDHAR DASARI, REP. FOR SRI T.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: Ms. ARCHANA, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court marJe the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.42938 of 2015 OR-DER: This Writ Petition is Iiled challenging the action of the respondents in continuing the Look Out Circular (Red Corner Notice) pending against the petitioners inspite of proceedings being quashed in C.C.No.1O48 of 201 1 on the file of X metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberavbad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, a-rising out of Crime No.455 of 2O i I of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad.

2. It is stated by the petitioners that ttre marriage of t].e first petitioner and one Sowmya took place in the month of January, 2OO5. Subsequently, in view of certain diiputes between petitioners and ttre family members of Sowmya, a case in Crime No.455 of 2O11 of Kushaiguda Police Station was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against all the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 4O6 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was numbered as C.C.No. 1O48 of 2O I 1 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberavbad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. However, vide common order dated 21.O7.2015 in Criminal Petition Nos.3728 of 2Ol2 and 66 of 2O13, this ./ I I VRKR, .J wp 42938 2015 Court quashed the proceedings against.all the petitioners in C.C.No. 1O48 of 2O I 1 on the irle of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberavbad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District and the said order became final.

3. The grievar-rce of the petitioners is that when Petitioner No.3 was returning to India along with her husband i.e., petitioner No.2, she was detained at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad stating that LOC was issued against her in connection with the above said case. Similarly other petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were also detained and questioned by tlte Border Security Force, United States of America while they were returning from Canada. The petitioner No.3 was produced belore the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad and upon producing a copy of the common order dated

21.O7.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3728 of 2072 and 66 of 2O 13, she was released. Thereafter, a formal representation was submitted before ttre respond.ents requesting the respondents to close the LOC pending against them by enclosing a copy of the orders passed by this court in the said cases. Since no action has been initiated based on the representaLion. -of the petitioners to close petitione::s approached tl-ris court challenging the LOC, ttre the continuation -.-- -) VRKR, J wp 4293a 20 l5 of LOC by the respondents regardless the orders dated

21.O7.2015 passed by this Court in CRLP Nos.3728 of 2Ol2 ar,d 66 of 2013.

4. Heard Sri Shreedhar Dasari, learned counsel represent-ing Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel on record for tl.e petitioners, Ms. Archala, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused tJle record.

5. This Court vide order dated 11.O2.2O16 while recording the statement of t].e learned Assistant Government Pleader observed that in the light of the subsequent developments, tJle cause in so far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 stands settled as t1.e Iookout circular/red corner notices issued against them have been cancelled. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of t1:e above stated developments, LOC cannot be continued against the petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are none other than the daughter and son-in-law of Petitioner No.3, more particularly when the LOC/red corner notice was cancelled against petitioner Nos.1 to 3.

6. lSince the very case alleged against the petitioners under Secd8ns 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed I t I by this court by common order dated 21.07.2015 in Crimina-l ) ) "l VRKR, J tlp 42938 20 t5 ,l --', '_ ' .,i Petition Nos.3728 of 2Ol2 and 66 of 2013, so far as tlte petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are daughter and son-in-law of tlte petitioner No.3 respectively, are concemed, this court finds that the LOC if continued against petitioner Nos.4 and 5, tlte same would result in undue hardship apart from prejudicing the rights and interest particularly their personal liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution. Thus, the LOC/red comer notice pending against the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 ca-nnot be continued.

7. [n view of the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside Look Out Circular [Red Corner Notice) pending against the peLitioners in respect of proceedings in C.C.No.1O48 of 2O11 on the file of X metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberavbad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of Crime No.455 of 2Ol1 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs- As a sequel, the misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.H.S, G AS-SISTANT ,TRUE COPYi/ RI SHANKAR REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretarrat' Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Addl Director General of Police, C.l.D., Telangana, Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate Ranga Reddy District I I t

4. The Joint Director, lmmigration, New Delhi 5. The lmmigration Officer, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport, Shamshabad 6. The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station, Hyderabad 7. One CC to SRI T.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to Ms. ARCHANA, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOI\IE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD Copies z3t% i/ I i \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 110812025 ORDER WP.No.42938 of 2015 I I I ({ -IHE S7^ ( f. a 0{ lJ[t/ nn* ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS