Introduction:

In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty and proportionality in criminal procedure, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. Union of India and Others, took serious exception to the growing practice of police authorities issuing Look Out Circulars (LOCs) in a routine and mechanical manner in matrimonial disputes registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, now corresponding to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, an Electrical Technician employed in Dubai, whose international travel and livelihood were abruptly disrupted due to an LOC issued at the instance of the local police following a marital dispute. The petitioner’s wife had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty and dowry-related harassment, leading to registration of offences under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Despite the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, his appearance before the police upon notice, and his release on bail, an LOC was later issued, resulting in his detention at Visakhapatnam Airport in January 2026 when he attempted to return to Dubai for employment. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, while allowing the writ petition and quashing the LOC, delivered strong observations underscoring that LOCs are extraordinary coercive measures meant for grave offences affecting national security or public interest and cannot be deployed casually in routine matrimonial cases. The judgment stands as a crucial reminder that criminal law enforcement must operate within the constitutional framework of Article 21 and that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the issuance and continuance of the Look Out Circular against him was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the dispute between the petitioner and his wife was purely matrimonial in nature and did not involve any allegation of grave offence, threat to national security, or risk to public interest that could justify the issuance of an LOC. The petitioner emphasized that he had fully cooperated with the investigating agency from the inception of the case. Upon receiving notice from the police in April 2025, he appeared before the authorities, participated in the investigation, and was granted bail in accordance with law. Thereafter, he lawfully returned to Dubai to resume his employment, which was the sole source of his livelihood. It was further submitted that in January 2026, the petitioner voluntarily returned to India to attend proceedings in a maintenance case initiated by his wife, thereby demonstrating his bona fides and respect for the judicial process. Despite this, when he attempted to leave India on January 14, 2026, he was unexpectedly apprehended at Visakhapatnam Airport on the basis of an LOC, of which he had no prior knowledge. Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate G. Seena Kumar, submitted that the LOC had effectively immobilized the petitioner within India, placing his employment in jeopardy and exposing him to irreparable financial and professional loss. It was pointed out that the petitioner was required to report back for duty in Dubai by February 9, 2026, and failure to do so would result in termination of his employment. The petitioner argued that an LOC, by its very nature, seriously curtails personal liberty and freedom of movement, and therefore must satisfy strict legal thresholds. Reliance was placed on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2021, particularly Sub-para (L), which mandates that LOCs should be issued only in exceptional circumstances where departure of the individual would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or where such departure is otherwise against the larger public interest. It was contended that none of these conditions were attracted in the present case. The petitioner further submitted that matrimonial cases under Section 498-A often culminate in compromise or take years to reach trial, and therefore, restraining an accused from travelling abroad indefinitely amounts to punitive action without adjudication. On these grounds, the petitioner sought quashing of the LOC as being disproportionate, unjustified, and unconstitutional.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, opposed the writ petition and sought justification for the issuance of the Look Out Circular. It was contended that the petitioner was accused of offences under Section 85 BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which are serious in nature and involve allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against a woman. The prosecution expressed apprehension that if the LOC were to be cancelled, there was a strong likelihood that the petitioner might evade the judicial process by remaining abroad and avoiding trial. It was argued that once the petitioner is permitted to travel back to Dubai, securing his presence during the pendency of criminal proceedings would become difficult, thereby frustrating the course of justice. The State further submitted that the power to issue an LOC is a preventive measure aimed at ensuring the availability of the accused for investigation and trial, and that such power must be viewed in the context of effective law enforcement. According to the respondents, the issuance of the LOC was justified in order to prevent the petitioner from absconding and to ensure compliance with legal proceedings in India. It was also argued that the petitioner’s employment abroad should not override the interests of justice or the rights of the complainant-wife, who was entitled to a fair and effective prosecution of her complaint. The respondents maintained that the LOC was issued in accordance with law and that the petitioner had an adequate remedy of seeking appropriate permissions from the trial court for travel abroad. On these premises, the State urged the High Court to dismiss the writ petition and uphold the LOC in the interest of justice.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, after carefully considering the submissions of both sides and examining the material on record, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner. The Court began by expressing concern over the increasingly common practice of police authorities issuing LOCs in a mechanical manner in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, particularly under Section 498-A IPC. The Court categorically observed that LOCs are coercive measures that directly impinge upon the personal liberty of an individual and therefore must be reserved for exceptional cases involving grave offences, serious economic frauds, or acts detrimental to national security and public interest. The Court clarified that the very object of an LOC is to prevent persons accused of serious crimes from fleeing the country and evading the law, and not to act as a routine tool in ordinary criminal cases. Emphasizing the constitutional dimension of the issue, the Court held that any restriction on personal liberty must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the offence under Section 498-A IPC, though non-compoundable and cognizable, cannot be equated with offences that threaten the sovereignty or security of the nation. Justice Reddy observed that if an accused in a matrimonial case is prevented from travelling abroad solely on account of an LOC, it could result in irreparable loss, particularly when the individual’s employment and livelihood depend on overseas work. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that many matrimonial disputes either end in compromise or take a long time to reach final adjudication, and therefore, imposing an indefinite travel restriction through an LOC would amount to disproportionate hardship. Referring to the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines of 2021, the Court highlighted that LOCs should be issued only in exceptional circumstances and that the present case did not fall within the parameters laid down therein. The Court found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the authorities whenever required, and even returned to India voluntarily during the pendency of proceedings, thereby negating the apprehension that he would abscond. The Court rejected the State’s argument that mere pendency of a criminal case under Section 498-A justified the issuance of an LOC, holding that such an approach would reduce LOCs to instruments of routine harassment. Concluding that the continuance of the LOC was neither necessary nor justified, the Court held that it constituted an unwarranted infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner was quashed.