TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Nangineni to travel abroad. 2. Petitioner/ Sh. Jagadish Nangineni, a Civil Engineer by profession, has done his B. Tech from IIT Mumbai and holds a degree of MBA from IIM, Kolkata. 3. In November 2009, the Petitioner joined Sobha Limited ("Sobha"), as the General Manager, Business Development, purely in a professional capacity with no prior financial or other interest, and worked in the registered Office of the Company at Bangalore. In 2010, he shifted to the Sobha's NCR office at Gurugram and continued as Deputy Managing Director & Regional Head until March 2022. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted and designated as the Managing Director of Sobha on April 1, 2022 and is currently fulfilling his official duties while residing at Bangaluru. 4. The initial F.I.R No. 291/2018dated 13.12.2018 was registered by Bajghera Police Station, Gurugram District, Haryana against Sobha and others, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975("HDRUAA") and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860("IPC"). On the basis of the scheduled offences in the above F.I.R., the Respondent No. 1/Directorate of Enforceme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same, on the premise that the Charges u/s. 420 I.P.C. have been dropped and thus, the jurisdiction of ED to continue with the ECIR has lapsed. This Court, vide Order dated 07.08.2020, has directed that the subject ECIR be closed with liberty to the Respondent No. 1 to revive the same, if a supplementary charge sheet is filed and/ or a Charge is framed concerning the Scheduled Offence. 13. However, in the interim, the Respondent No. 1, the Haryana Police on 01.08.2020, filed an Application before the Ld. Magistrate seeking permission to further investigate and file a supplementary Charge Sheet on the ground that "new facts and witnesses have come into notice" which was allowed vide Order dated 04.08.2020. Pertinently, this factum of filing of Application was never disclosed to this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition was pending consideration. 14. Pursuant thereto, the Police filed a Supplementary Charge Sheet-1 on 20.08.2020, against the Petitioner and others, and added Section 420 IPC. A bare perusal of the Supplementary Charge Sheet-1, reveals that the incorporation of Section 420 IPC is completely unrelated to the FIR or the initial Charge Sheet. Additionally, the jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority and the same is pending for disposal. 22. The Petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (Crl.) 4153/ 2021 before the Supreme Court of India against the Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking Anticipatory Bail in the ECIR. Vide Order dated 29.06.2021interim protection was granted to the Petitioner which was made absolute on 15.02.2022. Thereafter, on 05.09.2022, leave was granted and the SLP was disposed in favour of the Petitioner. 23. It is thus, submitted that the Petitioner, being a Managing Director of a reputed listed Company, he is required to frequently travel abroad to fulfil his professional commitments. Further, it is apposite to note that while allowing the Anticipatory Bail SLP, no restrictions or conditions were imposed with respect to the travel of Petitioner. 24. However, it is apprehended that the Respondent No. 2/the Respondent No.3 has issued a LOC against the Petitioner at the instance of the Respondent No. 1/ED, restricting the Petitioner's travel abroad. Though the Petitioner had sent a letter dated 09.02.2023to the Respondent No. 1, seeking clarification if any LOC has been issued against the Petitioner restricting the Petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are holding Indian Passport, he shall return back to the country. 33. Lastly, the very issuance of the LOC against the Petitioner is illegal, unlawful, unjust, and amounts to an act of unreasonable curtailment of the personal liberty of the Petitioner. It is submitted that such an action vitiates the constitutional rights of the Petitioner enshrined under Article(s) 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The LOC if any, is thus liable to be quashed. 34. Respondent No. 1/ED in its Reply has essentially contented that the Look-Out Circular had been issued on 15.02.2021 as departure of the Petitioner from India, is detrimental economic interest of India and ought not to be permitted in the larger public interest. The LOC is in accordance with the OM No. 25016/31/2010-Imm. dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which was amended vide OM No. 25016/10/201 7-Imm (Pt.) dated 05.12.2017. 35. It is further submitted that issuance of LOC is in nature of an administrative action and can be issued by an Investigating Agency in cognizable offences where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or failing to appear before the Trial Court, or where there is a likelihood....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 24.05.2022 in Directorate of Enforcement vs Kanwar Deep Singh in CRL. M.C. 1748/2022, Judgement o dated 24.05.2023 in Kanwar Deep Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement in CRL.M.C. 6638/2022, Order dated 18.08.2023 in Kanwar Deep Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Crl) Diary No 24253/2023, Judgement dated 21.09.2023 in Mandhir Singh Todd vs Directorate of Enforcement in CRL.M.C. 289/2023, Judgement dated 31.10.2023 in Jai Prakash Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement in CRL. M.C.5012/2023, Judgement dated 29.08.2017 in Nitin Sandesara v. Directorate of Enforcement in W.P.(C) 7559/2017. 41. In Rejoinder, the Petitioner has essentially reiterated the stand taken in the Petition and has also submitted that the Petitioner had to travel to Dubai for professional reasons. He had preferred C.M. No.16690/2023 before this Court seeking permission for travel, which was allowed vide Order dated 30.06.2023 granting permission to the Petitioner to travel to Dubai from 03.07.2023 to 07.07.2023. 42. It is also argued that the LOCs would be valid only for a period of 1 year from the date of issuance and thus, the present LOC dated 15.02.2021 lapsed on 14.02.2022. Thereafter, it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Sumer Singh Salkan (Supra) decided on 11.08.2010. It was observed that "Recourse to 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 there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest". 47. In the present case, none of the circumstances are made out. Though it has been insisted that the LOC was issued to secure presence of the Petitioner and that he is at flight risk and would evade trial, however, it is evident that the Petitioner has been duly cooperating with the Investigating Agency by furnishing the requisite documents and by responding to queries raised by the Respondent No. 1/ED. It is also recorded in Order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Apex Court that he has appeared more than 14 times before the ED. 48. Further, the Petitioner has explained that his family, property, employment and residence is in India. However owing to professional commitments, he has to travel abroad and he had previously been permitted to travel to Dubai from 03.07.2023 to 07.07.2023 vide Order....