Bikkaneti Veeresh vs The State of Telangana AND 3 OTHERS

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO Between: AND Bikkaneti Veeresh, S/o Sailu, Age.

34Years, Occ.

Student, R/o H.No.B- 3OlSl1312, Surya Hills Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad. -Presently residing in 15609, Rosew-ood ST APT'6 Omaha, NE.68136 U.S.A.

Rep. by G.P.A.

Holder, (Mother) Bikkaneti Upendra W/o Bikkineti Sa!g-Age 55.Years, Occ.

House Wife, R/o H.No.8-30/Sl 1312, Surya Hills Colony' Boduppal' Hyderabad' ...pETrroNER 1.

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2.

Th6 Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District Suryapet.

3.

The S.H.O.P.S, Nuthanakal, Suryapet District.

4.

The Union of lndia, Home Depariment, Represented by its principal Secretary, New Delhi, lndia. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction respondents 2 lo 4 in withdrawal of lookout notice/circular if any pending against the petitioner in Cr.No.146/2019 of P.S.

Nuthanakal as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of lndia consequently direct the respondents 2lo 4 to withdraw the lookout notice circular pending against the petitioner in Cr.No146/2019 Of P.S.

Nuthanakal.

IANO:1OF 2022 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 respondents 2lo 4lo withdraw the lookout notice/circular issued if any against the petitioner in Cr.No.146/2019 of P.S.Nuthanakal during pendency of writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.

ACHUTA REDDY FOR SRI M.

SAROJ REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI S.

3: SRI S.

RAMAMOHAN RAO, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASST.

SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2s281 OF 2022 t I'HI.], HON'I}LE SM't.

JUS'TICE LALTTIIA KANNEGANTI \1RI't PEI'ITION No.25281 of 2022 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 i.e, Station House officer, Nuthankal police Station, in withdrawal of lookout notice pending against the petitioner in crime No.

146 of 2019 of Nuthankal police Station, as illegal and arbirrary.

2.

Sri M.Saroj Reddy, rearned counsel for the petitioner, submits that basing on the cornplaint given by the petitioner's wife, Crime No.

146 of 2019 is registered for the offences under Sections 49g-A and 509 lpc and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act.

He submits that as the petitioner is in uSA at that point of time and after registration of the crime, the respondents have issued LoC.

After conducting investigation, the respondent police have filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as c.c.No.868 of 2020.

As there was a compromise between the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the petitioner is acquitted vide order dated l9.l 1.2021.

He submits that even after crosure of the criminal case, the police failed to close the Loc and in view of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to travel abroad.

He further submits that as of now no t i I ) crime is pending against the petitioner and there is no purpose olcontinuing the LOC.

Sri S.Ramamohan Rao, learned Assistant Goverrunent Pleader fbr I{ome, also does not dispute the fact that the only crime that is pending againstthepetitionerisendedinacquittal'HesubmitsthatLOC'which was issued against the petitioner, was not renewed after the lapse of one year 4.

As per the material on record, when tl.re petitioner was absconding' the police issued LOC. ssued LOC.

The crime that is pending against the petitioner is ended up in acquittal and on the face of it' there are no valid reasons for continuing the LOC.

Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent police to withdraw LOC pending against the petitioner' within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' 5.

With the above direction' the Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications' pending if any' shall stand closed' sD/-P PADMANiBRII,tiRRX sec%u oFFlcER I ,TRUE COPY// To, 1.

The Principat Secreury' Home Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat' ;.ilt"iffi r':s:,ih"ifil:':lsilff Sgib?Ji'Li:lsuryape'i I 4.

The Principal Secretary, Union of lndia, Home.D-epartment, New Delhi, lndia' 5.

One CC to Sri M.

Saroi Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 6.

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7- One-CC to Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Asst.

Solicitor General, Advocate loPUCl 8.

Two CD Copies 9.

One Spare Copy &*v 1 SM SW I I HIGH COURT DATED:,1410612022 ORDER ,/.'-$ 1H 4f t\ q- d.\ WP.No.25281 of 2022 03 At]s 202 ,r) \1,,<n I , b \$t ff,i]ffi3"9,i,.*"