ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Writ Petition is filed by petitioner aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) in her name in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad. She seeks a consequential direction to set aside the said LOC and permit her along with children to travel abroad. 2. Petitioner states that she has been arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 6 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town. It is stated, her marriage was performed on 04.03.2018 and, immediately after the marriage, she joined her husband who was then working in Sweden on an onsite assignment. Thereafter, the couple continued to reside abroad, and subsequently shifted their residence to the United States of America, where they presently live in the State of Texas. Petitioner submits that she was blessed with two children, aged about 6 and 2 years, both of whom are studying in school in the United States. She further states that she has been pursuing her higher education in the United States on F-1 Visa, having commenced her studies as a dependent previously and completed her Master's Degree in May 2025. 2.1. Petitioner contends that she came to India on 06.06.2025 along with her two children solely for the purpose of completing certain visa formalities connected to her academic programme, and during her arrival at Bangalore Airport she was first informed about pendency of the above crime registered against her. She asserts that until that moment, she had absolutely no knowledge about the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 10 or registration of Crime No. 6 of 2023, nor was she aware that a charge sheet had been filed against other accused persons. She states that upon enquiry made through her parents after her arrival in India, she came to know that family elders had intervened and that a settlement styled as "Kulalapeddala Theermanam" had been executed on 29.06.2025 between her parents and parents of Respondent No. 10, wherein it was agreed that Respondent No. 10 and Accused No. 1 would obtain mutual divorce; parents of Respondent No. 10 had agreed to receive Rs. 11,50,000/-, and that all pending cases, including the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. 11,50,000/-, and that all pending cases, including the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, would be closed pursuant to the said settlement. 2.2. Petitioner further states that on 23.07.2025, she visited Nizamabad and approached Respondent No. 5 - Investigating Officer, and explained in person that she had no connection with the allegations; she informed about the settlement arrived at between the families and that Respondent No. 10 had agreed to withdraw criminal proceedings. Even at that time, no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been served on her, and none of the police officials informed her regarding existence of LOC against her. It is stated, petitioner booked tickets on 17.07.2025 to return to the United States along with her two children on 29.07.2025, after completion of her F-1 Visa process. However, at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, they were detained by Respondent No. 8 on the ground of LOC. She therefore, is stated to have contacted the office of Respondent No. 2 over Whats App, requesting permission to travel with her children, and only thereafter, on 02.08.2025, she received xerox copy of LOC and the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. 2.3. Petitioner states that she obtained certified copies of the crime records and the charge sheet and came to know that police, after investigation, filed charge sheet only against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 251 of 2023 before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, mentioning therein that a separate charge sheet would be filed against her. Despite that assertion, no charge sheet was filed against her till date. She asserts that she has been falsely implicated, with a mala fide intention to harass her and to extract money by taking undue advantage of the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.4. Petitioner contends that issuance of LOC is mechanical and without any prima facie basis, particularly in view of the fact that no charge sheet has been filed against her. She states that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the registration of crime and had never been served with any notice or intimation prior to her detention. She voluntarily approached the Women Police Station, Nizamabad, and has been cooperating with the authorities. She states that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the registration of crime and had never been served with any notice or intimation prior to her detention. She voluntarily approached the Women Police Station, Nizamabad, and has been cooperating with the authorities. According to petitioner, the action of issuing and continuing LOC is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and is violative of her fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Continuation of LOC causes irreparable harm to her education, career and future prospects, and also gravely affects the welfare of her minor children whose schooling and residence are in the United States. She additionally states that her husband is undergoing severe mental tension due to her sudden detention and inability to return. She therefore, prays that Look Out Circular be set aside or suspended and that she be permitted to return to the United States along with her children. 3. Respondent No. 5, who is the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 6 of 2023, filed a counter affidavit stating that crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 10 on 24.01.2023, alleging matrimonial harassment; statutory procedure was followed insofar as issuance of notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is concerned; specifically, notices were issued to Accused 2, 3 and 5 on 24.02.2023 and a notice was issued to petitioner (A-4) on 07.06.2025. In the course of investigation, passport particulars of petitioner were obtained and recorded and, having regard to the possibility of the petitioner leaving the jurisdiction, a request for issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) was addressed to the competent authority on 16.02.2023. 3.1. Respondent No. 5 further contends that after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed being C.C. No. 251 of 2023 against Accused 1 to 3 and 5, and a separate charge sheet in C.C. No. 1396 of 2025 against petitioner (A-4), and that the criminal proceedings are thus being pursued in accordance with law. It is asserted that despite information and communication available to petitioner, she has not cooperated adequately with the investigating agency and has not appeared before the Trial Court through counsel or otherwise. It is also asserted that, at times, the whereabouts of petitioner were not available to the investigating agency despite her return to India. It is asserted that despite information and communication available to petitioner, she has not cooperated adequately with the investigating agency and has not appeared before the Trial Court through counsel or otherwise. It is also asserted that, at times, the whereabouts of petitioner were not available to the investigating agency despite her return to India. Respondent No. 5 maintains that issuance of LOC was justified and lawful, being a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the presence of the accused for the purposes of investigation and trial, and that revocation of LOC would expose the prosecution to the risk of petitioner evading the process of law. 3.2. It is emphasized that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available before the trial Court to seek permission to travel during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum to bypass the procedure and safeguards available in the trial Court. On these grounds, Respondent No. 5 urges that writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, hence, prays for its dismissal. 4. Respondent No. 10 - complainant similarly denies petitioner's averments and sets out the following contentions. Petitioner had knowledge of criminal proceedings and, notwithstanding that knowledge, intentionally evaded appearance before the trial Court. It is stated, settlement deed dated 29.06.2025 was executed only after petitioner came to India, therefore, execution of settlement cannot be relied upon as a conclusive bar to the proceedings; further, it is stated that terms of the settlement have not been complied with to date. 4.1. Respondent No. 10 contends that permitting petitioner to leave India in the present circumstances will jeopardize compliance with settlement terms and will also prejudicially-affect administration of justice in the pending criminal proceedings. Although petitioner asserted academic and family hardships, such considerations cannot be permitted to be used as a shield to avoid attendance in the criminal trial; rather, the absence of petitioner would necessarily delay the trial and cause hardship to Respondent No. 10 who seeks prosecution of the allegations. It is stressed that petitioner has been residing abroad for several years and that there is a real possibility that, if allowed to leave the country, she may not return to face the trial. 4.2. It is stressed that petitioner has been residing abroad for several years and that there is a real possibility that, if allowed to leave the country, she may not return to face the trial. 4.2. Accordingly, Respondent No. 10 contends that LOC was issued in accordance with law and in the legitimate exercise of the powers of the competent authorities to prevent evasion of the process of law. It is further stated that petitioner should have approached the trial Court to seek permission to travel and that writ petition is an attempt to obtain premature vacation of LOC outside the appropriate judicial forum. On these grounds, Respondent No. 10 prays that Writ Petition be dismissed and LOC be allowed to continue until such time the trial Court or the competent authority, is satisfied that petitioner's attendance and the ends of justice are not prejudiced. 5. Heard Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Home for Respondents 1 to 5 and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Respondents 6 to 9 and Sri Ramesh Kadari, learned counsel for Respondent No.10. 6. The facts reveal that petitioner is shown as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 6 of 2023 relating to alleged matrimonial harassment. It is not in dispute that she has been residing abroad since her marriage in 2018, except for short visits to India. It is also undisputed that petitioner came to know of the case only upon her arrival at Bangalore Airport on 06.06.2025 and that she thereafter, visited Nizamabad on 23.07.2025 and met the Investigating Officer. Petitioner asserts that she was never served with the notice under Section 41-A, whereas respondents contend that notice dated 07.06.2025 was issued to her. The material does not establish that such notice was actually served on petitioner. The record further indicates that charge sheet filed initially did not include petitioner and only a subsequent charge sheet was filed, though petitioner asserts that no charge sheet has been filed against her. There is no dispute that petitioner was prevented from boarding flight on 29.07.2025 on account of LOC and that she obtained a copy of LOC and Section 41-A notice only on 02.08.2025. 7. There is no dispute that petitioner was prevented from boarding flight on 29.07.2025 on account of LOC and that she obtained a copy of LOC and Section 41-A notice only on 02.08.2025. 7. Petitioner placed before the Court the factum of settlement dated 29.06.2025 between the families of petitioner and Respondent No. 10, wherein it was agreed to resolve matrimonial disputes and close pending proceedings. Respondent No. 10 admits the settlement but asserts that its terms have not been complied with. These contentions pertain to matrimonial issues and are matters to be addressed in appropriate proceedings. 8. It is also to be noted that petitioner has given a clear undertaking in the affidavit that she is willing to cooperate with the investigation and trial and shall appear whenever required. On the other hand, respondents have not placed material to show that petitioner has deliberately evaded process after gaining knowledge of the case. Her visit to the Women Police Station on 23.07.2025 stands admitted. Petitioner has also established that she has academic commitments requiring her presence in the United States along with her minor children, and that continuation of LOC disrupts her education, schooling of her children and immigration status. Respondents do not dispute the fact that petitioner's children and husband are residing abroad and that petitioner has been pursuing her studies there. 9. The contention that petitioner may not return to India is speculative. Adequate safeguards, including securing her undertaking, can ensure her availability for trial. The criminal proceedings against petitioner remain pending and she expressed willingness to participate in the same. This Court therefore, finds that issuance and continuation of LOC in the present facts, particularly when petitioner voluntarily approached the Investigating Officer, when no material is placed to establish absconding, when initial charge sheet did not even include her name, and when the effect of LOC is to impede her education and family life abroad, is not justified. LOC, in the present circumstances, is disproportionate to the purpose sought to be served and is liable to be set aside, subject to conditions ensuring petitioner's participation in the criminal proceedings. 10. For the foregoing reasons, LOC issued against petitioner vide LOC Suspect No. 2342305 in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 on the file of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad is hereby set aside. 10. For the foregoing reasons, LOC issued against petitioner vide LOC Suspect No. 2342305 in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2023 on the file of Women Police Station, Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad is hereby set aside. Respondents 6 to 8 are directed to permit petitioner and her children to travel abroad. Petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial Court within two weeks from today, undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required and to participate in the proceedings without fail. She shall also furnish her overseas address, contact details and e mail to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court. Subject to the above conditions, the LOC shall remain cancelled. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.