Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a diamond industry businessman with export-import operations across Hong Kong, Belgium, Moscow, and New York, challenged a Look Out Circular dated 3 September 2021 that restricted his international travel. He had earlier filed a writ petition which was dismissed, but he approached the High Court again citing changed circumstances, including completion of the investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigating Office, filing of a charge-sheet without naming him as an accused, absence of any complaint against him, and repeated court orders recording no flight risk. The LOC had been suspended for a substantial period, and the petitioner had travelled abroad 27 times, always returning within the stipulated period and complying with all conditions. He also explained that his wife had suffered from cancer and he had needed travel for her medical treatment, and she had passed away. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a writ of Mandamus to withdraw the travel restrictions and quash the LOC. His counsel argued that continuation of the LOC amounted to abuse of process because there was no material against him and no pending case. The respondents initially submitted that the file had been referred to the Director SFIO New Delhi and a procedure was required before lodging a complaint, but when specifically asked by the court whether no material was found against the petitioner and no complaint had been lodged, the answer was negative. However, the Assistant Director SFIO, Gautam Kumar, sought permission to address the court and clarified that no material was found against the petitioner during investigation, the file was forwarded to the Central Government, the Central Government did not grant sanction to lodge a complaint, and the petitioner was not required for further investigation. The court noted the changed circumstances and the binding precedents allowing a subsequent writ petition in changed circumstances. It held that the LOC need not be continued when investigation is complete, no material is found, no complaint is lodged, and no flight risk is established. The court exercised inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and allowed the writ petition, quashing the LOC dated 3 September 2021 and directing Respondent No.2 to intimate all Immigration Authorities at points of departure that the LOC is quashed. The order was restricted to the present case and not applicable to any other restrictions or cases against the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 - Maintainability of Subsequent Writ Petition on Changed Circumstances - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner filed a second writ petition after earlier dismissal, relying upon new developments including completion of investigation, no material, no complaint, and no flight risk. The court considered that changed circumstances allowed maintainability in view of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh and State represented by DSP, SBCID, Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran. Held that the petition was maintainable and the LOC could be examined afresh (Paras 5-6, 11-12). B) Look Out Circular - Quashing of LOC - Absence of Material, No Accused, No Flight Risk - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The LOC dated 3 September 2021 was challenged; investigation completed, charge-sheet filed without naming the petitioner, no complaint against him, previous court orders recorded no flight risk, and petitioner travelled 27 times returning within time. The court held that continuation of LOC was an abuse of the process of law and quashed it, directing intimation to immigration authorities. Held that LOC need not continue where no material is found (Paras 5, 9-12). C) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers of High Court - Preventing Abuse of Process and Securing Ends of Justice - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The High Court invoked inherent powers to secure ends of justice as the Assistant Director SFIO personally informed that no material was found against the petitioner, the file was referred to Central Government which did not grant sanction to lodge complaint, and petitioner was not required for further investigation. Held that LOC need not continue and rule was made absolute (Paras 7, 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Look Out Circular dated 3 September 2021 should be quashed in view of new developments and changed circumstances, including completion of investigation, no material against the petitioner, no complaint lodged, and no flight risk.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause 16(a). The Look Out Circular dated 3 September 2021 was quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 was directed to intimate the Immigration Authorities at all points of departure from India that the LOC is quashed. The order was restricted to the present case and not applicable to any other restriction or case against the petitioner. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Writ petition under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS is maintainable in changed circumstances after earlier dismissal
- Look Out Circular can be quashed if investigation is complete
- no material is found against the petitioner
- no complaint is lodged
- and the petitioner is not shown to be a flight risk
- continuation of LOC in such circumstances would be abuse of the process of law
- High Court has inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice
