9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, 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. Notably, the Apex Court has already granted Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner vide Order dated 05.09.2022, with the directions that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioner. The Anticipatory Bail order also obliges the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating agency. Given these facts, that petitioner has joined investigations, is not evading the process of law and there is no likelihood of the petitioner leaving the country to evade trial; none of the grounds for continuing the LOC continue to exist. The Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. Shreya Som, Mr. Dwijesh Kapila, Mr. Mukesh Seju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the Petitioner or Sobha and even if there is any violation, the same constitutes only a civil wrong/contractual dispute. 6. Pursuant to recording the ECIR (based on the FIR), in 2019, the Respondent No. 1/ED had initiated its investigation and interrogation in which the Petitioner has duly cooperated with the Respondent No. 1 and has furnished all requisite details/ information/ papers and documents sought. 7. On 20.08.2019, even before the Charge Sheet was filed by the Police, the Respondent No. 1/ED raided the Petitioner's residence on 20.08.2019 and office on 20.08.2019 to 21.08.2019, and seized various documents and devices, which still remain in the custody of the Respondent No. 1/ED. 8. Subsequently, after conducting detailed investigation in the FIR, a Final Report/ Initial Charge Sheet dated 30.10.2019 bearing CHA-5297/2019 was filed against the Petitioner and others for alleged offence punishable only under Section 10 of the HDRUAA, before the Ld. jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. 9. Pertinently, the Scheduled Offence of Section 420 IPC was omitted/ dropped by the Police having been fully satisfied that no such offence is committed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person before the Respondent No. 1/ED about 13 times and has duly responded to all queries via email or through counsels. Even the then Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Sobha, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, the then Chief Financial Officer of Sobha, Mr. Subhash M Bhat and other personnel of Sobha, including the IT Personnel, have appeared before the Respondent No. 1/ED on multiple occasions and provided access to all relevant documents, statements, digital database, etc. 17. Since the Supplementary Charge Sheet-1 has sought to reintroduce Section 420 IPC and has been filed in the absence of any new material or evidence, the Petitioner herein filed the Quashing Petition bearing CRM-M 22817 of 2021 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,. 18. Thereafter, the Police filed a Supplementary Charge-Sheet-2 on 04.01.2022, invoking Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and added Sobha and certain other parties, as accused. However, the Jurisdictional Magistrate has yet not taken cognizance of the same. 19. Thus, the Petitioner filed an Application dated 06.04.2022 in the quashing Petition to include challenge and quashing of the Supplementary Charge Sheet. 20. After considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing refused exit by the Immigration department at the airport, in addition to the financial loss for the travel arrangements. 26. Additionally, pendency of any LOC against the Petitioner will also be in violation of the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has granted protection to the Petitioner in connection with the ECIR, without any travel restrictions. 27. Thus, the Present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the LOC if any, has been opened against him. 28. The Petitioner has asserted that he is not a flight risk and cannot be deemed to in any manner, evading the process of law. The Petitioner has deep roots in India including his family, property, employment, and residence. The Petitioner is a regular taxpayer in India and has filed his Income Tax Return up to Assessment Year 2022-23. 29. The Petitioner has duly cooperated with the investigation conducted by the Respondent No. 1 till date and there is nothing to show that any such apprehension of the Petitioner not surrendering to the investigating agency is no longer tenable. 30. The Apex Court has already granted the Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner vide Order dated 05.09.2022 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed off, raising reasonable suspicion of him being underground. His non-cooperation was evident as he did not appear on 11.02.2021, 16.02.2021, 25.02.2021, 10.03.2021, 25.03.2021, 02.06.2021 and 10.06.2021. Some summons were received by his father and his wife, who stated that they were not aware about his whereabouts. 36. It is further contended that the reliance of the petitioner on the Orders of the Apex Court is misplaced which merely allowed his SLP for Anticipatory bail and the matter to travel to foreign was not even discussed during the course of hearing. 37. Further, the Petitioner is one of the potential accused being the Regional Director of Sobha and was the main person who is aware of all the affairs of Sobha Limited. He has also played an important role in setting up the 59 LLPs to override the provisions of the Agreements entered into by the Colonizer at the time of grant of License, by selling of No Profit No Loss Plots in violation of Agreement between Director, Town Country Planning and Developers. 38. Pertinently, the Petitioner is a flight risk since the Chairman of Sobha Limited is based in Dubai and Sobha Limited has many Projects based in Dubai and other count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illai v. Union of India Ors. W.P.(C) No. 774/2015, Kamalesh Sailesh Chandra Chakrabarty v. Union of India Anr. W.P.(C) No. 4740/2018, Brij Bhushan Kathura v. Union of Inida Ors., W.P.(C). No. 3374/2021, Deept Sarup Aggarwal v. Union of India Anr., W.P.(C). No. 5382/2020, Noor Paul v. Union of India Ors., CWP No. 5492/2022, Bank of India v. Noor Paul Ors., SLP (C) No. 7733/2022, Vikas Chauhdary v Union of India Ors., W.P.(C). No. 5374/2021, Dhruv Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC Online Del 1983, Rana Ayyub v Union of India and Another , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 961, Shri Sathish Babu Sana v. Central Bureau of Investigation, W.P.(C). No.249/2019, Ratul Puri v. Union of India Ors, W.P.(C). No. 5873/2022, Order dated 14.12.2022 and Order dated 20.04.2022, Sandeep Singh Deswal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), W.P.(C). No.275/2023 and Raghav Bahl v. Enforcement Directorate Ministry of Finance, W.P.(C). No.2392/2021. 44. Further, it is contended that Lookout circular cannot be issued when the accused has been granted Bail. Reliance has been placed on E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy Ors. V State Ors., 2014(1) MLJ(Crl) 125, M. Thaigarajan v. The Passport Issuing Authority, Regional Passpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
