CRLRC/1031/2024 of Mrs. Yeruva Ajitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by[accused][ No.4]assailingtheorderdated17.09.2024oflearnedJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,SpecialMobileCourt,Guntur,inCrl.M.P.No.2428 of 2024 in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022.

2. Heard arguments of SriNelaturi Jesu Ratna Kumar, thelearnedcounselforrevisionpetitioner andlearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresentingrespondentNo. 1-StateandSriPosaniVenkateswarlu,the learnedSenior Counselbeingassisted by Sri Jangam Venkata Siva Sai, the learned[counsel][ on]record for respondent No.2/victim.learnedcounselforrevisionpetitioner andlearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresentingrespondentNo. 1-StateandSriPosaniVenkateswarlu,the learnedSenior Counselbeingassisted by Sri Jangam Venkata Siva Sai, the learned[counsel][ on]record for respondent No.2/victim.

3. For the purpose of disposing of this revision, the followingfacts are required to be noticed:facts are required to be noticed:

The revision petitioner is a married woman. She along[with]her husband have been residing in the United States[of][ America]since the year 2014.Sri Srikanth Reddy is brother[of][ the][ revision]petitioner.His marriage with respondent No.2 was solemnized[in]

India on 25.02.2015.The newlyweds also went to theUnitedStates of America and lived there.Disputes arose betweenthenewly married couple.

On theallegation that respondent No.2 was subjected tohusband andrelatives and that there wasancrueltyby hercriminal intimidation andattempt to murder her and there wascheatingand criminal breach of trust, a written informationwasCrime No.605 of 2021 for thelodged and that was registered asunder Sections 498-A. 307, 506 and 420offences punishable3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.AfterI.P.C. and Sectionslaid before the learneddue investigation, a charge sheet wasof First class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.Judicial MagistrateSince the offences alleged are exclusively triable[by a Court][ of]Sessions,thelearnedMagistrateregisteredthecaseasIn the said case, the present revisionP.R.C.No.20of 2022.A.4 and her husband is arraigned aspetitioner is arraigned asA.6.husband andrelatives and that there wasancrueltyby hercriminal intimidation andattempt to murder her and there wascheatingand criminal breach of trust, a written informationwasCrime No.605 of 2021 for thelodged and that was registered asunder Sections 498-A. 307, 506 and 420offences punishable3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.AfterI.P.C. and Sectionslaid before the learneddue investigation, a charge sheet wasof First class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.Judicial MagistrateSince the offences alleged are exclusively triable[by a Court][ of]Sessions,thelearnedMagistrateregisteredthecaseasIn the said case, the present revisionP.R.C.No.20of 2022.A.4 and her husband is arraigned aspetitioner is arraigned asA.6.

underinvestigation,theWhilethecrimeincident wasthat the revision petitioner andinvestigating officer took the viewTherefore, he applied to theher husband were absconding.

superior officers who eventually issued LOC/Red Corner[Notice]against them.Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs),Government of India, issued LOC/Red Corner Notice vide[Order]No.1/SIC(SCK) LOC/2021-11156 dated 16.11.2021.

Therevisionpetitioner andher husbandfiledCriminalPetition No.7544 of 2022 before this Court with a prayer to quashthe criminal proceedings against them.A learned Judge[of][ this]Courtbyorderdated08.08.2023quashedthecriminalproceedings against the husband of the revisionpetitioner.Inother words,her prayer for quashing the criminal proceedingsagainst her was dismissed.Aggrieved by that order,[the][ revision]petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme[Court]of India.In Special Leave to Appeal (CrI.) No. 14686[of][ 2023][ their]Lordships by an order dated 11.12.2023 directed as[mentioned]below:

“Further proceedingsin PRC/20/2022, pending theCourtofSpecialJudicialFirstClassMagistrate,shallremain stayed till the next date of hearing.”

Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India byorder dated 19.01.2024 passed the following order;

“Byconsent,arequestis madeby thelearnedcounsel appearing for the parties to resolve the dispute[by]wayof mediation. Both the learned counsel appearing forthepartiessubmittedthatHon'bleMr.JusticeKurianJoseph, former Judge of this Court may be requested[to][ act]asaMediator.In such viewof thematter, werequestHon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph to act as a Mediator[to]resolve their disputes.

Therefore, we direct the Registry to place the matterbefore Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph,after obtaininghisconsent, transmit to him all the necessary records[pertaining]to the case for effecting mediation.

It is his discretion to fix his own fees. The fees[has][ to]be apportioned by both the parties.

The parties are permitted to appear virtually, unlessrequired to appear physically at a later stage.

List the matter after receipt of the report from theMediation Centre after 8 weeks.

Interim order granted on 11.12.2023 to continue.

On 02.09.2024 the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2428of 2024inP.R.C.No.20of 2022 before the learnedJudicialMagistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur[and][ this]petition was filed under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023.[The][ prayer]made therein is to recall and withdraw the Look Out[Circular/Red]

CornerNoticeissuedagainstthepetitioner.ThelearnedMagistrate after hearing both sides and after consideringthematerial on record, passed an order dated 17.09.2024 dismissingthe said petition.The learned Magistrate declined to grant therelief on the following two grounds:

1. That the Look Out Circular/Red Corner Notice was notissued by the Court and therefore recallingit or cancellingit bythe Court does not arise.

2. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted stayof all further proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022, the prayer ofthe petitioner to recall the Look Out Circular/Red Corner Noticecould not be granted by it.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is[filed.]

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges that[the]petitionerhasbeenparticipatinginthelegalprocessandtherefore, she could not be stated to be an absconder and thelearned trial Court in such circumstances ought to[have][ exercised]its power and ought to have allowed the prayer madeinthepetition.That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayedallpetitionerhasbeenparticipatinginthelegalprocessandtherefore, she could not be stated to be an absconder and thelearned trial Court in such circumstances ought to[have][ exercised]its power and ought to have allowed the prayer madeinthepetition.That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayedall further proceedingsin P.R.C.No.20of 2022.CancellationorwithdrawalofLookOutCircular/RedCornerNoticehasnobearing on the pending proceedings and since the liberty[of][ the]petitionerisinperil,thelearnedMagistrate wasentitledtoconsider the prayer of the petitioner positively since granting suchprayer would not amount to proceeding further with the pendingPRC.Ineffect,thesubmissionofthelearnedcounselforpetitioner is that the prayer made in the petition cannot in any waybe considered as anything in violation of the orders[of][ the][ Hon’ble]Supreme Court of India.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondentNo.2 contended that the order passed by the Court below is onlyinterlocutoryin nature andnorevisionlies and therefore,thisrevision is misconceived and is required to be dismissed.No.2 contended that the order passed by the Court below is onlyinterlocutoryin nature andnorevisionlies and therefore,thisrevision is misconceived and is required to be dismissed.

7. That the revision petitioner nowhere in her petition[before]the Court below mentioned about her desire to come to India andin such circumstances seeking withdrawal or cancellation[of][ Look]Out Circular/Red Corner Notice is impermissible.the Court below mentioned about her desire to come to India andin such circumstances seeking withdrawal or cancellation[of][ Look]Out Circular/Red Corner Notice is impermissible.

8. It is in the context of the above facts, the revision[has][ fallen]for consideration Dr. VRKSJCrl.R.C.No.l031 of 2024

9. Itisundisputedthat LookOutCircularisacoercivemeasure to make a person surrender to the investigating[agency]or Court of law.The learned Magistrate’s jurisdiction[in][ affirming]LOGorincancellingLOGcommensuratewiththelearnedMagistrate’s power to issue or cancel Non-Bailable[Warrants][ vide]Gattupalliujwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh\

10. Accordingto the learned counsel for the petitioner,[LOG]wasissuedduringpendencyofinvestigation,Accordingtolearned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, subsequent[to][ filing]of charge sheet and registrationof P.R.C.No.20of[2022]thelearned Magistrate issued NBW.It has to be recorded[here][ that]the impugned order of the learned Magistrate does not[indicate]issuance of any NBW by the said Court. Be that as it[may.][ When]wasissuedduringpendencyofinvestigation,Accordingtolearned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, subsequent[to][ filing]of charge sheet and registrationof P.R.C.No.20of[2022]thelearned Magistrate issued NBW.It has to be recorded[here][ that]the impugned order of the learned Magistrate does not[indicate]issuance of any NBW by the said Court. Be that as it[may.][ When]oncethe investigation of the case culminated in filing[a][ charge]sheet which was taken note of and was registered as[a] PRC[ by]the learned Magistrate keeping the Look Out notice[alive,][ which]thesheet which was taken note of and was registered as[a] PRC[ by]the learned Magistrate keeping the Look Out notice[alive,][ which]thewasissued to ensure the presence of the accused duringcourse of investigation does not survive vide C.Jeyashekarv.course of investigation does not survive vide C.Jeyashekarv.

The Deputy Commissioner of Poiice.

^ Order dated 30.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 16731[of][ 2019]

^ Order dated 11.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.25755[of][ 2013]

11. In Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt Director^,it was statedthat LOG can be withdrawn by the authority that issued[and][ LOG]can also be rescinded by the Gourt where the case is pending orbytheGourt whichholds jurisdictionover thepolicestationconcerned.that LOG can be withdrawn by the authority that issued[and][ LOG]can also be rescinded by the Gourt where the case is pending orbytheGourt whichholds jurisdictionover thepolicestationconcerned.

12. In thelight of the above principles, the reluctance[of][ the]learned Magistrate on the ground that LOG was not issued by theGourt and therefore, could not be withdrawn byit iserroneous.Learned Magistrate legally committed an error in not exercisingjurisdiction vested withit.That legal error calls[for][ interference]ina revision.learned Magistrate on the ground that LOG was not issued by theGourt and therefore, could not be withdrawn byit iserroneous.Learned Magistrate legally committed an error in not exercisingjurisdiction vested withit.That legal error calls[for][ interference]ina revision.

13. Inalltheirfairnessthelearnedcounselonbothsidessubmitted that what was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme[Gourt][ of]India wasfurtherproceedingsinP.R.G.No.20of 2022andmatters such asrecallingof NBWetc., were never meanttoviolatetheordersgrantedbytheirLordshipsandtheyareessentially to preserve rights and liberties.

14. WhenacaseispendingbeforealearnedJudicial Magistrate of First Glass in the form of PRG, in the[absence][ of]

any other legal proceedings, the learned Magistrate[is][ to][ secure]the presence of the accused and furnish themail the copies ofdocuments in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing bothsides commit the case to the Court of Sessions under Section209 Cr.P.C.

15. Superior Courts grant stay only to preserve the stage[of][ the]proceedings till a decision is taken on the challenge placed beforeit.In the absence of any such stay, the proceedings[before][ the]other forum would proceed further and may stultify any ordersthat may eventually be passed by the Superior Court.Since thecriminal proceedings were challenged and were soughttobequashed and since suchrelief was claimed before, theHon’bleSupreme Court of India, their Lordships were pleased to grantstay of further proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022.Therefore,any further step such as furnishing the case papers and hearingboth sides for the purpose of taking a decision whether[to][ commit]the case or not are all stayed.Recalling of a warrant by itself isnot a step to be considered as one in furtherance of proceedingfurtherinP.R.C.No.20of2022.ExistenceofLOCoritswithdrawal is not a step in furtherance of taking further[action]inproceedings till a decision is taken on the challenge placed beforeit.In the absence of any such stay, the proceedings[before][ the]other forum would proceed further and may stultify any ordersthat may eventually be passed by the Superior Court.Since thecriminal proceedings were challenged and were soughttobequashed and since suchrelief was claimed before, theHon’bleSupreme Court of India, their Lordships were pleased to grantstay of further proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022.Therefore,any further step such as furnishing the case papers and hearingboth sides for the purpose of taking a decision whether[to][ commit]the case or not are all stayed.Recalling of a warrant by itself isnot a step to be considered as one in furtherance of proceedingfurtherinP.R.C.No.20of2022.ExistenceofLOCoritswithdrawal is not a step in furtherance of taking further[action]in

the PRC.In this regard,it has to be stated that in the absence ofthisrevisionpetitionerfilingCrl.l\/I.P.No.2428of2024inP.R.C.No.20 of 2022 under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023[what]could take place is that by virtue of Look Out Circular/Red CornerNotice the police could arrest the revision petitioner[on][ her][ arrival]to India.On such arrest by virtue of Section 78 of BNSS, thepolice have to produce the arrested individual before the learnedMagistrate within 24 hours.In such circumstances,[the][ learned]Magistrate has to take a decision either to remand the accused orto release him by granting bail.Whether in such circumstancescanit be said that the order of stay of further proceedings[inhibit]the learned Magistrate from taking one or the other decision whenthe accusedis produced before the learned Magistrate?Inallhumilityit has to be stated thatit seems never the intendment ofthe stay order to inhibit the Courts from doing anything[that]isabsolutely necessary and the intendment of the stay order is onlyto prevent the learned Magistrate from proceeding further[with]P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 since their Lordships were pleased[to refer]the matter for mediation.One has to see that their Lordships bythe order dated19.01.2024 which was extractedin the earlierparagraphs were pleased to record that the parties are permitted \

Dr. VRKS, J

Crl.R.C.No.l031of 2024

to appear virtually, unless required to appear physically[at][ a][ later]stage.When their Lordships were of the opinion thatat somepoint of time physical appearance of the parties may be requiredfor an effective mediation.In the event such a situation arisesand the revision petitioner intends to appear when so ordered bythe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, the Hon’ble former Judgeof the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India who was appointedas amediator therevisionpetitioner wouldnot bein a positiontoappear on her own since sheis sure to be arrested[because][ of]pending LOG.Therefore, rescinding the LOG would facilitate[her]effective participationin the pending mediation.In[that][ view][ of]the matter,thereasonrecorded by the learnedMagistrateinrefusing to grant the prayer made by the revision petitioner[is][ to]be considered irregular.

16. Withreference to the maintainability of arevisioninthecontext of these facts, the learned counsel for revision petitionercited Vipin Sahni v. Central Bureau of Investigation"^.TheirLordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held[that][ in][ the]event a revision is lawfully instituted before the High Court but thecontext of these facts, the learned counsel for revision petitionercited Vipin Sahni v. Central Bureau of Investigation"^.TheirLordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held[that][ in][ the]event a revision is lawfully instituted before the High Court but the " (2024) 4 SCR 308

sameis thereafter found to be not maintainable on[some][ other]ground, it would be open to the High Court to treat[the][ same][ as a]petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to do[ justice][ in]that case.Learned counselforrevisionpetitioneralsocitedHonnaiahT.H.v.Stateof Karnataka^.Referringtotherevisional jurisdiction, their Lordships were pleased[to][ state][ that]the power can be exercised where the interest of public justicerequires interference for correctionof manifestillegality[or][ the]preventionof gross miscarriageof justice.Any order[which]substantially affects the rights of the parties cannot[be][ said][ to][ be]aninterlocutory order andarevisionismaintainable.Theserulings sufficiently address the concerns about maintainability[of]revisionraised by the learned Senior Counselfor respondentNo.2,For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is[of][ the][ view]that the impugned order cannot be maintained andis[thus]setaside.

17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.Orderdated 17.09.2024 of learned Judicial Magistrate ofFirst ClassSpecialMobileCourt,GunturinCrl.M.P.No.2428of[2024]indated 17.09.2024 of learned Judicial Magistrate ofFirst ClassSpecialMobileCourt,GunturinCrl.M.P.No.2428of[2024]in /

Conclusion

P.R,C.No.20 of 2022 is set aside.Cri.M.P.No.2428 of 2024inP.R.C.No.20 of 2022 is aiiowed.LOC/Red Corner Notice videOrder No.1/SIC(SCK) LOC/2021-11156 dated16.11.2021 issuedby Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Governmentof India, stands suspended,The petitioner on reaching Indiashall appear before the Court andexecute a personal bond forRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and furnish one suretyfor a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial MagistrateofFirst Class, Special Mobile Court,Guntur,undertakingtoappear before the Court as and when calledfor.Onsuchexecution of bond LOC stands rescinded.The originator of LOCshall forthwith communicate the order to Bureau of ImmigrationasisrequiredunderOfficeMemorandumNo.25016/10/2017-lmm(pt.).GovernmentofIndiaMinistryofHomeAffairsForeigners Division, (Immigration Section).

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendingif any.

shall stand closed.

Sd/. K TATA RAOdeputy REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

U

To.

SECnON OFFICER

1- The Judicial Magistrateof First Class, Special Mobile Court, Gunturof First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur(with records)2. The Inspector of Police,Pattabhipuram Police Station GunturPattabhipuram Police Station Guntur3. The Government of India1. Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners Divisions1. Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners Divisions (Immigration Section) New Delhi.

4. OneCCtoSri. Jesu Ratna Kumar Nelaturi, Advocate[[OPUC]]

5. One CC toSri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate[[OPUC]]

6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh][ [OUT]]

7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court[of][ Andhra][ Pradesh][ at]Amaravathi.Amaravathi.

8. Three CD Copies

PR

sree

HIGH COURTDATED:31/12/2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1031 of 2024

o;/:cVoto FEB 2025|Current Section. ^

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

I*