2026 (2) TMI 887

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, seeking permission to go abroad, has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Director of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd., a duly incorporated company and is a registered assessee under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The company is engaged in the manufacturing of pure lead and lead alloys and has its manufacturing unit in the State of Haryana. On the basis of certain intelligence inputs, the respondent-Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) conducted search proceedings on 27.03.2018 at the business premises of the company as well as at the residential prem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied the permission to travel abroad merely on the basis of apprehensions and due to the pendency of trial. He contends that despite passage of more than 04 years, no prosecution witness has been examined. He contends that the foreign company has issued a fresh Approval Letter dated 16.12.2025 whereby the visit has been rescheduled during January -February 2026. He contends that the petitioner intends to go abroad for a period of 20 days commencing w.e.f. 10.02.2026 to 28.02.2026. He contends that to protect the interest of the petitioner company, he be permitted to leave India for the said period. 5. Counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that there is a possibility of the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "12. Exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice........" 10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2020) 10 SCC 77, wherein speaking through Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, observed as under: - "21. ...It would suffice to note that the co-accused was granted bail by the Sessions Judge Thane on 16 April 2018. We are called upon to decide only whether the appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks. In evaluating this issue, we must have regard to the nature of the allegati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks. The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. While it is true that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant, that, in our view, should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is a resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn to the attention of the High Court and this Court that serious consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the appellant were not permitted....