Telangana High Court
Rajeev Lakhanpal , Rajeev ... vs The State Of Telangana on 1 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3004 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in issuing the Look Out Notice/Circular against the Petitioners Passport Number Z4041421 and Passport Number Z4041631 without issuing Notice U/s.41 (A) Cr.P.C in violation of the guidelines of Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Cr.P.C and also in violation of Fundamental Rights and against Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same by granting permission to the petitioners to travel back to Dubai to join their 3 daughters who are studying in Dubai by imposing reasonable conditions and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."
2. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. The respondent No.6 is the brother of the petitioner No.2 and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that on the request of respondent No.6, petitioner No.1 has joined in M/s. Taashee Linux Services as partner and partnership deed was executed on 19.05.2016 by paying Rs.50 lakhs which was mutually agreed upon. It is further case of the petitioners that partnership deed was signed by all the partners and the same was certified from Registrar of Companies. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is major shareholder in the said 2 firm and the firm was converted into a Private Limited Company on 06.05.2020 as the Private Limited Company will have a better opportunity of growing business and thereby the erstwhile Partnership Firm M/s.Taashee Linux Services was converted into M/s. Taashee Linux Services Private Limited Company and a Board Resolution to that effect was passed on 24.02.2020. An Articles of Association [AOA] and Memorandum of Association [MoA] was drawn up and executed for the same purpose and the names of respondent No.6 and petitioner No.1 were recorded as First Directors of the Company and the same has been filed with the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Out of total 50,00,000 Shares of M/s.Taashee Linux Services Private Limited, the petitioner No.1 was holding 35,00,000 i.e, 70% shares, Respondent No.6 was holding 5,00,000 i.e, 10% Shares and Manoj Nisha was holding 10,00,000 i.e., 20%. Further, the Income Tax Returns of erstwhile Firm M/s. Taashee Linux Services for the Assessment Years 2017- 18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 including Profit & Loss Account, and Balance Sheets signed by all Partners duly filed with Income Tax Department, establishes that the petitioner No.1 is holding 70% i.e., 35,00,000 Shares. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.6 overrated the company profit and 3 valuation at the time when the petitioner No.1 was inducted as Director of the Company and with a malafide intention wrongly inflated numbers and shown the turnover as 48 crores but the actual turnover was 28 crores and the said fact was concealed by the respondent No.6. When the petitioner No.1 confronted the respondent No.6 about wrongly inflating numbers and demanded to repay Rs.2 crores which was loaned by the petitioner No.1 to respondent No.6, the respondent No.6 agitated about it and threatened the petitioner No.1 with dire consequences. It is further case of the petitioners that they are settled in Dubai and their children are studying there, and the petitioner No.1 will frequently visit Dubai and taking advantage of his absence and while he was stuck up in Dubai due to Pandemic and travel ban, the Respondent No.6 approached con firms i.e., La Mintage Consulting LL.P and La Mintage Legal claiming themselves as Law Firm managed by non-advocate named Moksha Kalyanram Abhiramula orchestrated conspiracy against the petitioner No.1 and started sending legal notices without Advocate's name merely stating his mobile number representing himself before the Courts and Police authorities as an Advocate, removed Computer Hard-Drives containing financial data from the Company, coerced employees to handover Company Letter Heads and Company round seals and 4 stamps purpose better known to Respondent No.6 and his accomplice. Further, the Respondent No.6 has moved Tally Data out of Company premises on the pretext of Forensic Audit without the petitioner No.1's approval as he being a major shareholder in the Company. Having come to know about the involvement of respondent No.6 to the adverse interest of the company and having realized that he has been cheated in the hands of respondent No.6, the petitioner No.1 has approached Panjagutta Police Station through his G.P.A and lodged a complaint but the police refused to take complaint and so the petitioner No.1 through his GPA filed a private complaint on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide S.R. No. 2765/2021 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.343/2021 on 28.07.2021 in Panjagutta Police Station for the offences under Sections 220B, 386, 420, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 66, 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act. However, the-then Investigating Officer of Panjagutta Police Station colluded with Respondent No.6 and his accomplice and closed the complaint stating as "Lack of Evidence". It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 also filed a private complaint on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide S.R. No. 2588/2021 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.594/2021 dated 10.07.2021 on 5 the file of K.P.H.B Colony Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, against Respondent No.6 for fraudulently cheating him for Rs.2 Crores. However, the Investigating Officer without issuing any notice as required under Section 91 Cr.P.C has closed the complaint of the petitioner as "Civil in Nature".
3. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.6 and the alleged "La Mintage Consulting LL.P." which falsified Tally Data of Partnership Firm to implicate Petitioners and La Mintage Legal, a Con Law Firm, managed by a non-advocate initiated false cases against the petitioner No.1 to blackmail, coerce, extort money, to usurp the properties of petitioner No.1 and to bring undue pressure to withdraw the cases against the Respondent No.6. Even after registration of cases, Respondent No.6 unilaterally appointed his another accomplice, a Chartered Accountant Mr. Sudhendra Rao (who is Accused No.4 in Cr.No.343/2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station) to conduct illegal Forensic Accounting Audit on falsified and compromised Tally Data and submitted Forensic Audit Reports to Panjagutta Police Station.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that Respondent No.6 has filed multiple counterblast cases against the petitioners and their 6 daughter by approaching the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally vide S.R.No.2795/2021 dated 23.07.2021 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.354/2021 dt.03.08.2021 and Crime No.382/2021 dated 14.08.2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station. It is further case of the petitioners that the police without giving any opportunity to the petitioners have closed their complaint i.e, Crime No.343/2021 whereas on the complaint lodged by respondent No.6, they have registered cases in Crime Nos.354/2021 and 382/2021 and filed charge sheets. It is further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1, on coming to know about registration of cases against him and his family, rushed to India and tried to enter the Company to secure his belongings and sensitive documents but the Respondent No.6 with the help of his accomplice & henchmen has revoked petitioner No.1's entry gate pass card barring entry in the company and physically restrained the petitioner No.1 from entering the company. Further, Respondent No.6 conducted an illegal alleged EGM unilaterally and removed the petitioner No.1 as Director and appointed his accomplice namely Moksha Kalyanram Abhiramula and his parents as Directors. Challenging the same, the petitioner No.1 filed a Company Petition C.P.No.47/2021 along with I.A.No.13/2021 on the file of National Company Law Tribunal 7 (NCLT), Hyderabad, wherein the Respondent No.6 has filed a Counter Company Petition C,P.No.49/2021 and they are pending on the file of NCLT, Hyderabad. It is further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the biased investigation of the Investigating Officer of Panjagutta Police Station, the petitioner No.1 approached the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad on 19.03.2022 and after reviewing material facts and evidence, Deputy Commissioner of Police, vide letter No. HW-8/RTI- Act/4537/2022 dated 23.08.2022 has directed the Panjagutta Police Station to reopen cases which were deliberately concealed by the Respondent No.6 in his complaint. It is further case of the petitioners that on verification of the Company Petition C.P.No.49/2021 filed by respondent No.6 on the file of NCLT, Hyderabad, the petitioner No.1 came to know that the Respondent No.6 illegally transferred 35,00,000 Shares of petitioner No.1 by forging his signatures on backdated Form SH-1 (Share Certificate) and Form SH-4 (Security Transfer Form) and on many other Documents i.e., Memorandum of Association, Partnership Deed, 2018 and Balance Sheets. The Respondent No.6 immediately took Board of Directors approval unjustly and increased Shares from 5,00,000 to 55,00,000 and the Directors are none other than his parents and accomplice appointed solely to execute his conspiracy 8 without any justification as to how 5,00,000 of his shares are increased to 55,00,000 shares although he had only 10% Profit Sharing Ratio between the years 2017 and 2021. It is further case of the petitioners that the Memorandum of Association submitted to Registrar of Companies, along with Form URC-1 at the time of conversion of Partnership Firm to Private Limited clearly shows in Part V, that the paid-up Capital is Rs.5,00,00,000 (Rupees Five Crore) divided into 50,00,000 Equity Shares (Fifty Lakhs) of Rs.10/-. So as in Form URC-1, "Serial No. 5 (a) Number of shares taken up to date-Equity 50,00,000". Thus, the question of Respondent No.6 holding 55,00,000 Shares of Rs.10/- each doesn't arise and M/s. Taashee Linux Services Private Limited never allotted 55,00,000 Shares to Respondent No.6. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint on the file of CCS, Hyderabad on 14.01.2022 along with Certified copies of supporting documents that his signatures are forged on valuable securities i.e, Share Certificates (Form SH-1), Security Transfer Form (SH-4), Partnership Deed, 2018 and other valuable documents and Respondent No.6 in collusion with other Accused illegally transferred his Shares. After thorough preliminary investigation, the said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.35 of 2022 dated 19.02.2022 for the offences under Sections 9 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 I.P.C. Even after recording the statements, the-then Investigating Officer, has not properly conducted investigation in the said case and the petitioners approached higher authorities. In retaliation, the Respondent No.6 colluded with the-then Investigating Officer, WCO Team-XI, CCS, DD, Hyderabad and filed the present counterblast case vide Cr.No.190/2022 dated 15.09.2022 against the petitioners.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that the Investigating Officer, in Cr.No.35/2022 issued multiple Notices under Sections 91/160 Cr.P.C and although he gave reply to all the notices, the Investigating Officer directed the petitioner No.1 to be present before him. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 along with his wife and daughter to comply the directions arrived India on 17.01.2023 leaving his three daughters alone in Dubai, as the petitioners planned to return to Dubai on the same day. It is further case of the petitioners they were stopped by the Immigration authorities stating that Look Out Circular in Cr.No.190/2022 on the file of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, was issued against them. The investigation agency issued Notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C and seized the passports of the petitioners. It is further case of the petitioners that issuing Look Out Circular without issuing Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. is direct violation of the guidelines issued by the 10 Hon'ble Supreme Court and no intimation was given to the petitioners regarding the registration of case in Cr.No.190/2022 on the file of CCS, DD Hyderabad and no Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioners depriving opportunity to prove their bonafide and without conducting enquiry is a direct violation of the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar 1 and violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners pray this Court to set aside the Look Out Notice/ Circular issued against them.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5, wherein inter alia it is stated that on 15.09.2022 at 18.45 hours, a complaint was received from respondent No.6-Managing Director of M/s. Taashee Linux Services Private Limited, in which it is stated that respondent No.6 started a partnership firm along with Manoj Kumar Garg under the name and style "M/s. Taashee Linux Services" on 27.04.2008; that linux is an operating system used in security systems by NIC (National Informatics Center) and Banks; that in early 2016 respondent No.6 identified that his partner Manoj Garg cheated him and as such he approached his sister- petitioner No.2 and brother-in-law-petitioner No.1 and the 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 11 petitioner No.2 suggested the respondent No.6 to induct the petitioner No.1 as partner in his company to manage accounting and finance; that obliging the suggestion of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 was taken as partner and an unregistered partnership deed was entered on 19.05.2016 and the petitioner No.1 was given incharge of accounting and finance and the petitioner No.1 was also given sole authorization to transact with all banks i.e., signing of cheques and bank transfers; and that taking advantage of his post, the petitioner No.1 created bogus creditors and vendors, fake service agreements and re-routed money from firm account to their accounts. The respondent No.5 stated that thus the accused persons along with 12 others cheated the complainant to the tune of about Rs.72 Crores. Further A.1 to A14 have created false documents/electronic records & affixed electronic signatures, used false documents/notices as genuine, counterfeit TLSPL official company seal, certified false resolutions/documents to be true and correct, sworn false affidavits, forged official documents and signatures, manipulated key corporate information, defamed, caused irreparable reputation and goodwill loss to the complainant, TLSPL and its stakeholders. Hence the complainant requested for necessary action. As per the contents of the complaint, a case in Cr.No.190/2022 was 12 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC of CCS, DD, Hyderabad and during the course of investigation, complainant and other witnesses were examined and relevant documents pertaining to financial transactions between the complainant and accused persons and ROC documents pertaining to complainant company were collected and LOC was issued against petitioners/A-1 and A-2 vide LOC Suspect Nos.2251880 and 2251881 dated 26-12-2022 of No.1/SIC(ACK)/ LOC/2022-16025 of Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India as the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 were residing in Dubai. It is further stated that while the investigation was in progress, on 17.01.2023 A-1 and A-2 were detained at Rajeev Gandhi International Airport (RGIA). Hyderabad due to LOC. It is further stated that A-1 and A-2 were thoroughly interrogated wherein the police came to know that already two cases were registered against them and others in Panjagutta Police station and those cases are pending on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, vide C.C.No.14111 of 2021 and C.C.No.1846 of 2022 respectively. It is further stated that after completion of investigation, case was charged on 21.07.2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad vide SR 13 No.7574/2023 and the C.C number is awaited and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.6, wherein inter alia it is stated that by virtue of the interim orders dated 28.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.1/2023 in W.P.No.3004/2023, the petitioners were allowed to visit their daughters, who were preparing for their exams and the said exams held from 14-03- 2023 to 24-03-2023. It is stated in the counter affidavit that now, the earlier purpose is satisfied and the present ground for which travel permission is sought for, is that their minor daughter namely, Anushka Lakhanpal has developed psychological issues but the respondent No.6 denied the same as false and baseless and stated that an emotional issue is sought to be created for obtaining favorable order. It is further stated that petitioners are aware that they are prime accused in CC No.1846/2022 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and facing serious charges. It is also stated that the petitioners are also prime accused in C.C No.14111/2021 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad for offence of illegally siphoning the funds of the M/s. Taashee Linux Services Private Limited (Formerly known as M/s. Taashee Linux Services) amounting to Rs.71,74,57,511.82 (Rupees Seventy one crores 14 seventy four lakhs fifty seven thousand five hundred and eleven and eighty two paisa only). It is further stated that the petitioners are aware of the pendency of criminal cases against them and they avoided receipt of summons only to delay trial despite being forced to be in India on account of passport seizure. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 in active participation with petitioner No. 2, has falsely created an entity M/s.Taashee Linux Services LLC Dubai, raised and created fake invoices, diverted more than 12 crores of foreign funds and has filed false affidavits and false complaints to create multiple litigation. The said crime is under investigation by CCS vide Crime No.190/2022. The passports are seized in this crime and the petitioners physical presence is required since the investigation is completed and the petitioner No.1 is charged as A-1. The petitioner No.1 is not revealing information pertaining to A-3, A-4, A-7, A-8, A-9 who are currently absconding. Therefore, if the petitioners are allowed to leave the country they may flee away leading to pending of trial in the criminal cases and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Heard the arguments of respective counsel and perused the record.
15
9. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was inducted as partner in M/s.Taashee Linux Services, a partnership firm. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1's bank statement obtained from the HDFC bank shows that Petitioner No.1 has transferred an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- [Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs] between 27.07.2016 to 14.02.2017 to Respondent No.6 i.e, Rs.50,00,000 [Rupees Fifty Lakhs] towards Sale Consideration and Rs.2,00,00,000 [Rupees Two Crore] towards hand-loan to purchase a Flat. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.6 has purchased a flat located at A-1902, Aparna Sarovar Grande, Nallagandla, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, only after transfer of amount by the petitioner No.1. The copy of Income Tax Returns filed in the name of partnership firm for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 along with ITR-5, Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheets duly signed by all three partners including respondent No.6 clearly shows that petitioner No.1 is the partner of the partnership firm. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 with ulterior motive hatched a plan and unilaterally appointed his accomplice, a Chartered Accountant Mr. Sudhendra Rao (who is Accused No.4 in Cr.No.343/2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station) to conduct illegal Forensic Accounting Audit on falsified 16 and compromised Tally Data and submitted Forensic Audit Reports to Panjagutta Police Station. Various other allegations mentioned by the petitioners with regard to inter se disputes are not related for the purpose of deciding this present writ petition.
10. It is the case of respondent No.5 that acting on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.6, a case in Crime No.190/2022 was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on the file of CCS, DD, Hyderabad. While the investigation is in progress, the petitioners were detained for the purpose of investigation and LOC was issued against them (A-1 and A-2) vide LOC Suspect Nos.2251880 and 2251881 dated 26-12-2022 of No.1/SIC(ACK)/ LOC/2022-16025 of Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India as the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 were residing in Dubai. It is further case of the respondent No.5 that while the investigation is in progress, the petitioners were detained on 17.01.2023 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad and they were taken into custody along with Original Passport Nos.Z4041421 and Z4041631 and brought to CCS, DD, Hyderabad and the petitioners were thoroughly interrogated wherein they came to know that two cases were also registered in Panjagutta Police station against them and others and those cases are pending on the file of the XIV Additional 17 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad vide C.C.No.14111 of 2021 and C.C.No.1846 of 2022. On 17.01.2023, Section 41A Cr.P.C. notices were issued to the petitioners and seized the original passports of the petitioners under seizure panchanama and submitted the seizure report to the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad on 20-01- 2023 vide SR No.601/2023 and the said passports were deposited vide P.I.No.42/2023. Subsequently the petitioners collected passports from the said Court. It is further case of the respondent No.5 that after conducting investigation in crime No.190/2022, they have laid charge sheet on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad vide SR No.7574/2023 and the same was numbered as C.C. No.8485 of 2023. It is the case of the respondent No.5 that petitioners presence is not only required in C.C.No.8485 of 2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad but also in other two pending criminal cases i.e, C.C.No.14111 of 2021 and C.C.No.1846 of 2022 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.
11. It is the case of the respondent No.6 that there are disputes relating to incorporation of the companies, transfer of shares illegally and misutilisation of funds of the company. There are 18 allegations and counter allegations in between the petitioners and respondent No.6.
12. A careful reading of the contents of the writ affidavit and counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 discloses that there are serious disputes with regard to the financial transactions, statement of accounts, transfer of shares, inducting new members as partners into the firm etc. The petitioners have filed a private complaint against the respondent No.6 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide S.R.No.2765/2021, the same was registered as a case in Crime No.343/2021 on 28.07.2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station under Sections 220B, 386, 420, 406, 506 of IPC, and 66, 66D, 66E of Information Technology Act. The said case was closed as "Lack of Evidence". It is not the case of the petitioners that questioning the closure report he filed a protest petition or complaint on the file of concerned Magistrate. Even after closure of the said complaint, the petitioner No.1 has filed another complaint on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide S.R. No. 2588/2021 and the same was registered as Crime No. 594/2021 on 10.07.2021 on the file of K.P.H.B Colony Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, against Respondent No.6 alleging that respondent No.6 19 fraudulently cheated the petitioner No.1 for Rs.2 Crores. The said case was closed as "Civil in Nature". Questioning the same, the respondent No.6 filed Criminal Petition No.3647/2022 on the file of this Court and this Court on the written instructions of Sub- Inspector of Police, KPHB Cyberabad, closed the Criminal Petition filed by respondent No.6.
13. The respondent No.6 claims that he is the Director of the Company and the petitioners have cheated him to the tune of Rs.72 Crores, whereas the petitioner No.1 claims that he has 70% shares in the company. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 has filed Company Petition vide C.P.No.47/2021 and the respondent No.6 has filed Company Petition vide C.P.No.49/2021 on the file of NCLT and the said Company Petitions are pending for adjudication.
14. It is to be seen in the present case, whether the circulars/ orders issued by the Government of India applies to the petitioners for continuation of LOC or the petitioners being the NRIs are entitled for withdrawal of LOCs. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, (Immigration Section), Government of India, has issued Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 framing consolidated guidelines for issuance of Look Out Circulars in 20 respect of Indian Citizens and foreigners. As per Clause 6(L) of the said guidelines, in exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B), if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time. As per the Circular Memorandum dated 01.07.2022 vide C.No.3089/C-3/IP/CID/ 2019-22 issued by the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, in all cases where the person against whom LOC has been opened is no longer wanted by the Originating Agency or by the Competent Court, the LOC deletion request must be conveyed to Bureau of Immigration immediately so that liberty of the individual is not jeopardized. Further, it is stated in the report filed by the Director General of Police that LOC will be continued basing on their satisfaction whether the person is going to cooperate with 21 the investigation or not. Further, as per the instructions issued by the Director General of Police vide circular dated 01.07.2022, stated that whenever notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C is issued or whenever bail is obtained by the accused, it is an obligation on the part of the police to address a letter to the Commissioner and the Commissioner in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC.
15. In this case, Section 41A Cr.P.C notices have already been issued to the petitioners and after receipt of the notices, the petitioners have submitted their explanation. LOC vide Suspect Nos.2251880 and 2251881 dated 26-12-2022 of No.1/SIC(ACK)/ LOC/2022-16025 of Bureau of Immigration (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, was issued against the petitioners in Crime No.190/2022 registered against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on the file of CCS, DD, Hyderabad. Continuation of LOC against the petitioners is not required for the reason that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad and the same was numbered as C.C.No.8485 of 2023. Since investigation is completed and petitioners also submitted their explanation to Section 41A Cr.P.C notices, and as the petitioners have also filed 22 some cases against the respondent No.6 for the prosecution of those cases, they have to necessarily visit India as and when their presence is required. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that if the LOCs against the petitioners are set aside, there is no possibility of the petitioners appearing in pending criminal cases which unnecessarily delays the criminal cases for want of appearance of the petitioners.
16. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty and the same cannot be curtailed without valid reasons. Therefore, issuance of LOC against the petitioners is not sustainable and the same amounts to unfair and unreasonable and liable to be quashed.
17. To meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to impose certain conditions for securing the presence of the petitioners in pending criminal cases.
18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the LOC Suspect Nos.2251880 and 2251881 dated 26-12-2022 of No.1/SIC(ACK)/LOC/2022-16025 of Bureau of Immigration 2 (1978) 1 SCC 248 23 (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, issued against the petitioners are set aside, subject to the following conditions:
i) That the petitioners shall furnish security for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) each by way of F.D.R to the satisfaction of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.
ii) That the petitioners shall furnish details of their travel itinerary to the said Magistrate before departure from India and shall intimate the same upon their arrival.
iii) That the petitioners shall give their mobile numbers and the details of their stay in countries, where they intend to travel.
iv) That the petitioners shall regularly appear in C.C.No.14111 of 2021 and C.C.No.1846 of 2022 on the file of XIV Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, and also in C.C.No.8485 of 2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. On furnishing the aforesaid security by the petitioners, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps immediately for deletion of the name of the petitioners from the LOCs. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to appear regularly in C.C.No.14111 of 2021 and C.C.No.1846 of 2022 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, and also in C.C.No.8485 of 2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan 24 Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, the security furnished by them shall stand forfeited and the respondents are given liberty to take appropriate steps for securing the presence of the petitioners, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 01.11.2023 scs