Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Posted on February 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that LOCs could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State. Not in Section 498A IPC cases routinely.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, 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 for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. 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, 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. In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening 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. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. 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. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.
10. Sub-para (L) of the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt), dated 22.02.2021, indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State, if such person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time.

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of LOC Judgments is here.

K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023

Posted on January 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court, relying on A Subash Babu judgment from Supreme Court here (referred to a partially perverse decision of AP HC here), held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. Chapter XIV of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 198 Sub-Section (1) proviso (c) Cr.P.C. provides that for a prosecution of an accused for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. it shall be initiated by a complaint made by the aggrieved
person namely the wife or on her behalf by her father, mother and other relations mentioned therein. Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines a ‘complaint’ showing that a complaint shall be made to a Magistrate and it does not include a police report. Thus, a complaint is different from police report. In terms of Section 198 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. could be initiated only by a complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. In the case at hand, the proceedings that were initiated before learned Magistrate were not out of a complaint filed before him. The case emerged on a police report. On these suppositions, one could say that the very initiation of prosecution is incorrect and against law. However, State of Andhra Pradesh passed Act 3 of 1992. By virtue of that, entry relating to Section 494 I.P.C. as mentioned in Schedule-1 of Code of Criminal Procedure at Column Nos.4 and 5 certain changes were brought in. This amendment made the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable. Be it noted that in terms of Section 2(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a cognizable offence means a case in which a police officer is entitled to arrest accused without any warrant issued by the Court. Be it also noted that Section 198 Cr.P.C. was not amended for Andhra Pradesh State. A plain reading of these provisions give an impression that Section 198 Cr.P.C. bar still holds good and therefore a prosecution for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. could be done only by a complainant through her complaint and not by way of a police report/charge sheet. It seems this view was followed in B.Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. However, these aspects were clarified and law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.Subhash Babu v. State of A.P.2. At para No.46 of the judgment, their Lordships have laid the law that by virtue of the said amendment for State of Andhra Pradesh carried out in the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bar contained in Section 198 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. gets lifted. In that view of the matter, one could say that prosecution in this State for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is possible either by a complaint or by a police report.

K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023

Citations: [2023 Latest Caselaw 3883 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39334506/

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2023/august/2023-latest-caselaw-3883-ap

Index of 494 IPC Judgments is here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on September 21, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a non-cooperating wife with the Criminal trail who has been evading appearance before the Court,.

From Paras 3-6,

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is not cooperating with the trail and has been evading appearance before the Court, even though bailable warrants were issued against the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that the bailable warrants were cancelled soon after the 1st respondent filed a memo undertaking to appear.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that even the petitioner was also absent on the last date of hearing, when the matter was listed for trial.
5. It is further submitted that the matter is now fixed for trial on 22.04.2017, and the 1st respondent would appear in Court and adduce the evidence.
6. Considering the submission, the Criminal Petition is disposed off with an observation that the learned Magistrate should endeavor to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six (06) months from the date of the receipt of this order.

2025-03-27 K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79857987/

Thanks to Adv Ram G for the below copy. He practiced law (all subjects) at Anantapur Courts and reachable on +91-90000-32896

2025-03-27 K.Sreekanth_Naik_vs_P_Nalini_-_2025_Supreme(Online)(AP)_3987_-_Supreme

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my second reportable judgment.

Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020

Posted on July 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court has set aside the 498A IPC conviction… one of the reasons being a Counterblast case.

From Para 23,

23) It is to be seen that, none of the witnesses clearly indicate as to when and also the nature of cruelty meted out to PW1. It is not as if A1 and PW1 lived only for a short period. The record shows that both of them lived together for more than three years. That being the position, some specific time period should have been mentioned with regard to the acts of harassment. Except saying that all the accused harassed, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is silent as to the nature of harassment meted out to PW1. Whether it was beating or by any other method. The usage of word ‘harassed’ in loose manner, in my view, cannot be taken as amounting to cruelty, unless, the evidence disclosing the nature of the harassment falling within the meaning of cruelty as deposed in 498A IPC. Further, as observed earlier, the nature of harassment spoken to by PW1 to PW4 are inconsistent with each other. Each witness is improving the case. What is spoken to by one witness is not spoken to by another witness.

Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020

Index of Quash judgments here.

Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 May 2025

Posted on June 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High court deprecated Police calling parties to civil/land disputes for settlement talks.

From Para 3,

3. It is needless to mention that when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes. This kind of establishing or creating PLCF calls for settlement of land dispute would lead to multifarious litigation and create a kind of perplex in the minds of the litigants and mushroom further litigations. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to entertain further civil issues like this under any name for settlement of the land dispute of the petitioner.

Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 May 2025

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Posted on June 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of AP High Court (Erstwhile Combined High Court for TS and AP) held that Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC in a Sec 125 CrPC case.

From Para 6,

6. Undoubtedly the proceedings before the court below are under section 125 Cr.P.C., though it is registered as FCOP the petition is only under section 125 Cr.P.C., and the procedure followed by the Judge is only under section 126 Cr.P.C. clause [2] the Court shall take evidence in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases; therefore, taking advantage of 126 [2] of Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the affidavit of the respondent cannot be permitted to be taken as evidence, like summons cases, this question no more res integra. In V.D. Solomon’s case, supra-1, the learned single Judge after elaborately dealing with section 10 of the Family Courts Act and other provisions held that in maintenance cases the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court has to record the evidence as contemplated under section 126 [2] Cr.P.C., and affidavits cannot be received. In view of the law declared by this Court the procedure adopted by the Judge, Additional Family Court is irregular and contrary to law. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., can set aside the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside.

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96d23d4653d053645840b9

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=407102273000&Title=GOLLAMUDI-RAMESH-Vs.-MODUKURI-NAGAMANI—MODKURI-GETHA-NAGAMANI

Index of Maintenance Judges is here.

Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024

Posted on May 3, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/659fafffe512165a322a69d7

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025

Posted on May 1, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Harinath N has passed this judgment, wherein it was held that,

From Para 36 and 37,

36. The defacto-complainant has been serving as Treasurer of Pastors Fellowship in Pittalavanipalem Mandal. In order to become Pastor one has to essentially convert to Christianity. Evidently the 2nd respondent is a Christian professing Christianity. Having converted to Christianity, the petitioner
cannot continue to be a member of Scheduled Caste community. The caste system is alien to Christianity. Having converted to Christianity and admitting his role as a Pastor in a Church the 2nd respondent could not invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
37. The SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a protective legislation introduced for preventing atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has misused the Protective Legislation though he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent had voluntarily converted to Christianity and was admittedly working as a Pastor in a Church for the last 10 years as on the date of incident. Thus, the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Protective Legislation.

From Para 40,

40. Considering all this, this is a case where the 2nd respondent has misused the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and filed a false complaint. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent continues to hold SC Certificate issued by LW.12 is concerned, the same is a matter to be dealt under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 by the appropriate authority under the Act. Mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate by the authority to a person who has converted into Christianity cannot instill the protection granted under the Protective Legislation. The 2nd respondent has ceased to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste Community, the day he had converted into Christianity.

Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Posted on March 21, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 6,

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/husband would contend that no disclosure statement was filed by the respondent No.1 herein/wife and without the said statement, it is difficult to estimate the financial expenses of either of the parties to come to a conclusion as to how much amount is to be awarded to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards maintenance.

From Para 8,

8. A perusal of entire material on record coupled with the Order and Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, respectively, goes to show that either of the parties did not file disclosure statement. A disclosure statement in a Domestic Violence Case (DVC) refers to a document where a party involved in the case is required to provide detailed information about their financial assets and liabilities, including income, property ownership, bank accounts, and debt, as per the Court’s Order, usually to help in determining the appropriate maintenance or compensation amount in the case

From Para 10,

10. A plain reading of the above proposition of law, it is evident that while deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the Civil Court/Family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. The applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, to enable the Court to take into consideration the maintenance that was already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount and if the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding. In the case on hand, apparently, no disclosure statement was filed. It is mandatory that both husband and wife are supposed to file the disclosure statement before the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the case in DVC No.27 of 2016 shall be remanded to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore, for fresh disposal.

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance cases under section 12 of DV Act is here.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of APHC relying on judgment passed in my earlier client case here, set aside the Trial Court Order and remanded the case back.

From Paras 5-7,

5. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, the learned counsel for petitioner, submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court by common order dated 25.04.2024 disposed of Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023 setting aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and requests for passing the same order. He fairly submits that the revision petitioner would pay maintenance to the minor children, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, till they attain majority as ordered by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the revision may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court.
7. In view of the same, and following the order passed in Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023, dated 25.04.2024, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The impugned order passed in M.C.No.62 of 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) This Court further directs both the parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha^ before the trial Court. The learned trial Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits is found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned trial Court shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
(iii) The learned trial Court shall dispose of M.C.No.62 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. It is made clear that the revision petitioner herein, as has been undertaken now shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the minor children at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month till they attain majority.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020

Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 May 2025

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024

Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024