2022 (1) TMI 1177 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking quashing the lookout circular - It is contended that the petitioner has always cooperated in the investigation and no ground for opening of the LOC or the continuation thereof is made out - HELD THAT - Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru are the main accused against whom lookout circulars have been recalled, whereas statement of the petitioner in the above-noted FIR was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as a witness. Though in the reply affidavit, the respondent claims that the petitioner is an accused however, till date neither he has been arrested nor any charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in the ECIR recorded by the Enforcement Directorate wherein while granting bail to the petitioner, passport of the petitioner has already been deposited with the Court. Even if the petitioner is chargesheeted in the above-noted FIR, the trial in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and the charge-sheet filed pursuant to the abovenoted FIR would have to be conducted together in terms of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the petitioner would be bound to seek permission before travelling abroad. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in SUMER SINGH SALKAN VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR ORS. AND COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VERSUS STATE VS. GURNEK SINGH ETC. 2010 (8) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petitioner. Hence the respondent is directed to recall its request for opening the LOC against the petitioner - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of lookout circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in relation to RC No.224/2017/A-001.
2. Validity of the LOC against the petitioner.
3. Compliance with legal principles in issuing the LOC.
4. Comparison with LOCs quashed for other accused.
5. Petitioner's cooperation in the investigation and travel restrictions due to the LOC.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the LOC issued against him in relation to a specific RC. The petitioner, not named in the RC, was summoned as a witness multiple times and cooperated in the investigation. The petitioner argued that the LOC, still in place against him, was unjustified as he had not been sent as an accused for trial. The petitioner, a businessman with investments in India, faced travel restrictions due to the LOC, hindering his business activities.

2. The petitioner contended that being a victim in another FIR, he had not been arrested or charged yet the LOC was opened against him without proper legal grounds. The investigating agency argued that the petitioner was required for investigation, justifying the LOC. However, the petitioner highlighted that he had traveled abroad with court permission and had not evaded arrest or failed to appear in court, meeting the criteria set by legal precedents for recalling the LOC.

3. The Court referred to legal precedents regarding the issuance and recall of LOCs, emphasizing that the investigating agency must follow specific procedures before opening an LOC. The person against whom the LOC is issued must cooperate with the investigation, surrender before the court, or demonstrate that the LOC was wrongly issued. The authority that issued the LOC or the trial court can withdraw or rescind the LOC based on the circumstances.

4. The Court noted that LOCs issued against other accused in the same RC had been quashed with conditions imposed for travel permissions and security deposits. The petitioner, being a witness in the case, argued that the LOC against him was unjustified given his cooperation and lack of criminal charges against him.

5. Considering the petitioner's compliance with the investigation, travel restrictions, and lack of criminal charges, the Court directed the respondent to recall the LOC against the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to continue cooperating in the investigation and adhere to any conditions imposed by the court when seeking permission to travel abroad. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with the order to be uploaded on the court's website.