Asad Khan v. Mr. Aadil Singh Bopari, Ms. Prakruthi Jain and Mr. Gaurav

fabricated documents. Subsequently, a second FIR, being the present FIR No.49 of 2022 dated 15.06.2022, was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the 2 IPC, on similar allegations regarding the same parcel of land. It was alleged that the petitioner forged the signatures of the complainant, Mr. Zulfan, and his brother, Shahnawaz, to create false documents and used the same to obtain approval from the District Magistrate and to further sell the land to Mr. Mudit Kohli for a consideration of ₹95,00,000/-. The petitioner had earlier filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.926 of 2022 seeking quashing of FIR No.41 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2022, directing the Investigating Officer to comply under the guidelines of the judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The petitioner was subsequently arrested in FIR No.49 of 2022 on 28.06.2022 and was granted bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, on 12.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.1506 of 2022 before this Court seeking quashing of FIR No.49 of 2022. Vide order dated 04.08.2022, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, which continues to remain in force.

3. Subsequently, petitioner complainant of the first FIR, Mr. Praneet Kohli, amicably resolved their disputes and executed a settlement agreement dated 03.11.2022. Taking note of this development, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition No.6646 of 2022, vide order dated

13.02.2023, set aside the earlier order of this Court dated

18.05.2022 and permitted the petitioner to file a fresh petition for quashing of the first FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also granted interim protection for eight weeks. Meanwhile, the investigating agency moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner in FIR No.49 of 2022, which was dismissed by 3 the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by a reasoned order dated 20.07.2023. It was in this order that the petitioner first became aware of the issuance of the impugned Look Out Circular against him. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel the petitioner submitted that the issuance of the impugned Look Out Circular is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the petitioner has not evaded or absconded from any judicial process and has been fully cooperating with the investigation. Therefore, the issuance and continuation of the LOC is without any justification. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has remained co-operative throughout the investigation. He also submitted that since his arrest and subsequent release on bail on 12.07.2022, the petitioner has not been summoned even once by the investigating agency for interrogation, nor has any notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure been issued to him for over two years. Therefore, this clearly establishes that there is no apprehension of absconding or non-cooperation on the petitioner’s part.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power to issue an LOC can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as when an accused is deliberately evading arrest or likely to flee the country to avoid trial. In the present case, there is no such apprehension. Reliance was placed in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 and E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy Vs. State 2013 reported in SCC OnLine Mad 4106, wherein it was held that LOCs cannot be issued mechanically or in a 4 routine manner. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have acted mechanically and in violation of law. It was argued that the impugned LOC has been issued in a routine manner without recording any satisfaction or reasons, in gross disregard of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Such arbitrary action, it was argued, amounts to an infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty and free movement guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in society and no risk of absconding. It was submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist, who owns a stone crusher business, and runs a not-for-profit school underprivileged children. His social and economic ties demonstrate his stability and negate any apprehension that he may flee the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continued operation of the LOC is causing grave prejudice and hardship. The learned counsel contended that due to the impugned LOC, the petitioner’s liberty and freedom of movement have been curtailed. He submitted that the petitioner seeks to travel abroad to Zurich, Switzerland, for tourism, and to visit his son, who is pursuing studies at Royal Holloway University of London, from 16.10.2024 to 26.10.2024. The LOC, it was submitted, effectively prevents him from exercising this legitimate right.

7. The learned counsel the petitioner vehemently argues that there exists no efficacious alternative remedy and in light of the arbitrary issuance and subsistence of the impugned LOC, the petitioner has 5 rightly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned LOC is devoid of legal foundation, violative of established judicial principles and constitutional safeguards, and thus deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and that the impugned Look Out Circular has been issued strictly in accordance with law. It was contended that the Investigating Officer, after conducting a thorough and comprehensive investigation the allegations, recording statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and considering the material evidence available on record, found direct and incriminating evidence against the petitioner.

9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that on the basis of such evidence, a charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC has already been filed before the competent court, thereby culminating investigation prosecution. The issuance of the impugned LOC, according to the State, was not arbitrary but a measure of procedural prudence to ensure the petitioner’s availability during the ongoing proceedings and to prevent any possibility of his absconding, particularly considering the serious nature of the offences involving forgery and cheating under the IPC.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner by means of their rejoinder affidavit submitted that the instant writ petition challenges the Lookout Circular 6 issued by respondent in pursuance of FIR No.49 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. It is also submitted that the petitioner has neither absconded nor evaded any summons, moreover the petitioner is duly co- operative and joined the investigation and that the status report dated 25.10.2024 grossly misrepresents factual matrix to mislead this Court.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition does not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner stands accused in FIR No.49 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to forgery and cheating involving a substantial monetary transaction of ₹95,00,000/-. Having regard to the gravity of the offences and the nature of evidence collected, this Court is not inclined to hold that the issuance of the Look Out Circular (LOC) was either arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

12. The purpose of an LOC is to ensure the availability of the accused during investigation or trial and to prevent evasion of the judicial process. In the facts of the present case, the investigating agency has placed material on record indicating that the petitioner has substantial financial dealings abroad and that there exists a reasonable apprehension that he may leave the country to avoid the ongoing proceedings. The satisfaction recorded by the competent authority before issuance of the LOC cannot be said to be perverse or 7 illegal. Furthermore, in the case of Vikram Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed:

16. The question now is only for consequential relief that should be granted. The power to suspend, even temporarily, a passport of a citizen, the power to issue an LOC, the power to ‘off-load’ a passenger and prevent him or her from travelling are all extraordinary powers, vested in the criminal law enforcement agencies by the statutory law. These are powers that are required under the law, to be exercised with caution and only by the authorities who are empowered by law to do so and then again only for valid reasons. Recently, in Suresh Nanda v. Union of India, 2010 IV AD (Del) 53, this Court, after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, observed:: “35….There has to be application of mind by the authority to the relevant factors that would enable it to come to the conclusion that the impounding of the passport is in the interests of the general public. And then again, in the context of the criminal case which is still under investigation, this cannot be an opinion formed at one point in time. The public interest element will vary depending on the stage of the investigation. It cannot be said that as long as the investigation is not complete, it is not in public interest to release a passport. That would be giving too wide a power to the authority.”

13. The principles discussed in Vikram Sharma (supra) regarding the exercise of extraordinary powers such as impounding a passport or issuing an LOC, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized upon that these powers must be exercised after due application of mind, considering relevant factors and the interests of the general public. In the present case, the competent authority has meticulously applied its mind to the gravity of the offences, the ongoing investigation, and the risk of the petitioner absconding. Therefore, the continuation of the impugned LOC is fully justified, and the petitioner’s reliance on the said judgment does not support his case for quashing the LOC.

14. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Assistant Director, 8 2010 reported in SCC OnLine Del 2699, and E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy Vs. State, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 4106, is misplaced. Those decisions were rendered in circumstances where no investigation was pending, or the accused had already joined the investigation. In the present case, however, the petitioner is an accused in a charge-sheeted case involving serious economic offences. The apprehension of the investigating agency cannot, therefore, be brushed aside as unfounded.

15. It is well settled that the right to travel abroad, though a component of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not an unfettered right and can be reasonably restricted in the larger interest of administration of justice. The impugned LOC, issued by the competent authority after due application of mind, constitutes such a reasonable restriction and is entirely within the authority vested by law.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the issuance or continuation of the impugned Look Out Circular against the petitioner.

17. The petition dismissed. The impugned Look Out Circular shall continue to remain in force. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

11.11.2025