Look Out Circulars Affect Career, Personal Liberty; Meant For Exceptional Cases, Not Routine Matrimonial Disputes: AP High Court

The Court emphasized that such circulars, which curtail personal liberty, are meant for exceptional cases involving grave offences or threats to national security, not for routine disputes under Section 498-A IPC.

With these observations, a bench of Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy allowed a Writ Petition filed by an Electrical Technician working in Dubai and quashed the LOC issued against him that prevented his return to employment.

Briefly put, a complaint was filed by the wife against the petitioner (Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran) over marital discord. The case was registered for offences punishable under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It was the petitioner's case that he had fully cooperated with the investigation and, upon receiving notice, appeared before the police in April 2025, was released on bail, and returned to Dubai.

However, later he returned to India in January 2026 to attend proceedings in a maintenance case. However, when he attempted to leave India on January 14, 2026, he was apprehended at Visakhapatnam Airport on the grounds that a Lookout Circular had been issued against him.

His counsel, Advocate G Seena Kumar, argued in the HC that due to the pendency of the LOC, the petitioner was unable to leave India, and if the same isn't quashed, he would lose his job. It was apprised to the bench that he was due to report for duty in Dubai on February 9, 2026.

On the other hand, the Assistant Government Pleader contended that if the LOC is cancelled, there is every likelihood of the petitioner avoiding the judicial process.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, Justice Reddy expressed concern over the trend of police authorities issuing LOCs as a matter of routine in matrimonial cases.

The Court clarified the true purpose of such circulars, stating that LOCs are coercive measures intended to detain persons accused of grave offences, financial irregularities, or crimes against society.

"If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that the offence u/s 498A IPC is not so grave, and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening a LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

"These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected", the bench stressed.

The Court also noted that in most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise, or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing, and hence, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open an LOC against the petitioner.

The order also referred to the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2021, Sub-para (L) of which stipulates that LOCs should be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, or largely in the public interest.

Applying these guidelines to the facts of the present case, Justice Reddy found that the petitioner did not fall within these parameters. Consequently, the Court opined that the continuance of the LOC issued against the petitioner would not be required.