ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Look Out Circular dt. 23.02.2025 against the Petitioner based on the Crime No.289 of 2024 of Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1824 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Visakhapatnam as illegal and contrary to law and an abuse of authority and process of law and consequently to direct the Respondents to withdraw the Look Out Circular dt. 23.02.2025 issued against the Petitioner basing on Crime No 289 of 2024 of Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam now the same is numbered as C.C.No.1824 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Visakhapatnam forthwith…..” 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner is accused No.4 in C.C.No.1824 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 85, 318(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has travelled to USA in 2018 and returned to London on 19.09.2024. The petitioner was at London as on the date of the complaint made by the de facto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her child are permanent residents of United Kingdom and they are intending to travel to London. He further submits that by virtue of the look out notice issued by the respondents the petitioner is expressing threat from the respondents and seeking to quash the look out notice issued to her. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Mahila Police Station and NBWs that were pending against the petitioner were recalled and charge sheet is filed before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and submits that the presence of the petitioner is required before the competent jurisdictional Court for trial. 6. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Court as and when her presence is required and prays to quash the Look Out Circular issued against her. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order, dated 09.10.2023, passed by this Court in W.P. No.16136 of 2023, wherein this Court at Para Nos. 6 and 7 held as follows: “6. The Look Out Circular (LOC) has not been defined anywhere legally. In Sumer Singh Saikan Vs. Assistant Director ’s case in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1315 of 2008 and Crl. Ref. No. 1 of 2006, High Court of Delhi held that LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and if there is any likelihood of accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest and only in those circumstances, LOC can be opened as against the accused therein. It is trite that the recourse can be had for issue of LOC by the police only in drastic contingencies. Without there being any proper procedure followed, coming to conclusion, to issue LOC is bad. It is not that the accused is not cooperating with the trial or is evading arrest. In W.P. No.12687 of 2022, dated 02.05.2022, this Court held as hereunder: “POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions. It is trite that the recourse can be had for issue of LOC only in extreme cases where the investigating agency establishes that the accused in cognizable cases deliberately evaded arrest or not appeared despite issuing of NBW and other coercive measures and also that there was every likelihood of accused absconding from the Country so as to not to submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned Criminal Court and thereby to evade arrest/trial and other criminal proceedings. In Sumer Singh Saikan ’s case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the High Court of Delhi reiterated the above aspect as to under what circumstance recourse to the LOC can be taken. 8. Be that it may, the present case is concerned, admittedly, we are not at the stage of issuing of LOC since it was already issued and pending against the petitioners. 8. Be that it may, the present case is concerned, admittedly, we are not at the stage of issuing of LOC since it was already issued and pending against the petitioners. However what is germane for consideration is whether the LOC can be allowed to be continued against the petitioners when in the charge-sheet filed by the police, they gave clean chit to them. To confirm whether the police laid charge-sheet and exonerated petitioners or not, this Court through Registrar (Judicial) called for relevant information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences-cum-FAC JMFC Mobile Court, Nellore. Learned Magistrate vide letter dated 29.04.2022 sent the relevant information stating that in Crime No.231/2021 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Police Station, Nellore laid charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 on 24.09.2021 while mentioning that he found no involvement of accused Nos.4 And 5 i.e. the petitioners herein and thereby not charge-sheeted them. Learned Magistrate further intimated that the charge-sheet came up for consideration before him on 02.03.2022 and on perusal of the record he found prima facie case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 but found no incriminating material against the accused Nos.4 and 5 in the charge-sheet and hence he issued notice to de facto complainant directing her appearance before the Court on 25.04.2022 for filing objections if any. Accordingly de facto complainant appeared before the Court on 25.04.2022 and sought time for filing protest petition and hence learned Magistrate extended the time till 03.06.2022.” 7. By virtue of opening the LOC, the personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common that the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, in mechanical manner, are opening the LOCs. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities, or the offences which are against the Society. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities, or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused in not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued.” 8. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No.325 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the LOC issued against the petitioner therein. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. If the petitioner is so advised, she is directed to appear before the trial Court and co-operate for trial. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.