2024 (9) TMI 467 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking interim stay of the LOC and for permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT - The merits of the opening of the LOC against the petitioner, is a subject matter of challenge in the main Petition, which shall be considered thereunder. By way of the present Application, the permission has been sought to travel to New York and Dubai from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024, on the ground that the petitioner intends to meet his daughter in Dubai and also to facilitate the admission of his son in New York. Insofar as meeting the son and daughter are concerned, there is no restriction on the children to travel to India, to meet the parents. For this purpose, there is no need for the petitioner, to travel to Dubai. The learned Special Judge, has rightly observed that no cogent reasons have been given by the petitioner, for travelling abroad. The Judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner, are of little assistance and need not be considered at this stage, for the simple reason that the purpose for travel itself has not been justified. Application dismissed.

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad under Section 482 of Cr.PC
2. Abuse of process of law and Fundamental rights violation
3. Co-operation in investigation and flight risk assessment
4. Balance between individual rights and national interest
5. Justification for travel and reliance on legal precedents

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad under Section 482 of Cr.PC, citing the need to assist his children in higher education in New York and Dubai. The application was filed to seek interim stay of the LOC and travel from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024.

2. The petitioner argued that the travel restrictions imposed on him amounted to an abuse of process of law and violated his Fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, specifically the right to travel abroad. The delay in considering the application led to a change in travel dates.

3. The petitioner claimed to be cooperating in the investigation and posed no flight risk. He offered to provide a detailed travel itinerary and emphasized that the restrictions adversely affected his personal and professional life. The balance of convenience was argued to favor granting permission to travel.

4. The respondent contended that the petitioner's associations with various corporate entities, including overseas companies, raised concerns about financial transactions and potential flight risk. The Special Judge noted discrepancies in the petitioner's disclosures and concluded that granting permission to travel would be detrimental to the ongoing investigation and the country's economic interests.

5. Legal arguments were made regarding the necessity and justification for travel, citing past judgments related to economic offenders' flight risks. The petitioner's reliance on legal precedents was countered by the court, which found the purpose of travel insufficiently justified and dismissed the application.

6. The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's application, noting the lack of cogent reasons for travel and the absence of sufficient justification. The court emphasized that the purpose of travel, particularly for facilitating education and family meetings, did not warrant granting permission to travel abroad.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning for dismissing the application for permission to travel abroad.

← Previous Next →