Back
Mere Pendency of FIR Can't Justify Prolonged LOC Operation:
Introduction
In a significant ruling protecting fundamental rights, the quashed a issued against Maria Ramesh, a petitioner accused in a Rs. 22.5 crore real estate investment dispute. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the mere pendency of an FIR or investigation cannot justify the prolonged restriction on an individual's abroad under . The decision came in the petition filed by Ramesh challenging the LOC linked to FIR No. 218 of 2020 registered by the under .
Case Background
The dispute originated from a between complainant Ashok Sachdev and associates with the petitioner's husband for investing in the "Ushera" real estate project. While Rs. 35 crores was initially contemplated, only Rs. 22.5 crores was invested, leading to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The FIR was registered on , against Ramesh and co-accused.
Ramesh, apprehending arrest, secured on , from the . The bail order noted no apparent illegality or fund siphoning, with the project 50-70% complete and no illegal transfers detected by the investigating officer. Despite this, an LOC was issued in 2021, which Ramesh discovered only when barred from traveling abroad, including to Australia for her granddaughter's medical needs. The case has been pending since 2020, with no filed and multiple related proceedings against the complainant dismissed or closed as civil disputes, such as an case and an complaint.
The key legal questions were whether the LOC's continuation violated Article 21 and under what circumstances an LOC can be quashed when the accused has cooperated fully.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner, Maria Ramesh, argued that she had fully cooperated with the investigation since her , yet had not been summoned for over three years. She emphasized that no was filed, and the status report from , indicated her minor role. Ramesh contended that the LOC, issued without disclosing grounds even under RTI, unduly restricted her and , especially given prior court permissions for foreign trips where she returned on time. She highlighted the civil nature of related disputes and her non-arrest status.
The respondents, represented by the and the investigating agency, maintained that the investigation into the FIR was ongoing, justifying the LOC to prevent potential . However, they did not allege any non-cooperation, evasion of summons, or interference by Ramesh. The agency placed no fresh evidence of her role or need for continued restraint, relying primarily on the FIR's pendency.
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the issuance and continuation of LOCs as an extraordinary coercive measure impacting the under Article 21, referencing established precedents. In Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699), the outlined that LOCs are permissible in where the accused evades arrest or , with likelihood of fleeing to evade trial. The procedure requires a reasoned written request, and remedies include approaching the issuing authority or court.
Relying on Puja Chadha v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025:DHC:8787) and Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587), the court stressed that LOCs must follow and cannot be indefinite without like non-cooperation. In Sandeep Dhanuka v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2025 SCC OnLine Del 8280) and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva v. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170), it was clarified that mere investigation pendency does not suffice for prolonged curbs, distinguishing between initial issuance and extended operation.
The judgment distinguished LOCs from routine measures, noting they cannot be used for debt recovery or without criminal culpability ( Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153; Shalini Khanna v. , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 837). Applying Maneka Gandhi v. (1978) 1 SCC 248, the court held that restraints must be reasonable and procedure-bound. Here, Ramesh's cooperation, lack of (evidenced by past travels), and absence of new material rendered the LOC .
Key Observations
- "Mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of LOC."
- "The continued operation of the LOC operates as a restraint on the petitioner’s and under of India."
- "The absence of any supervening circumstance warranting restraint on the petitioner’s for the purposes of investigation renders the continuation of the LOC unnecessary."
- "Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest." (From Sumer Singh Salkan )
- "An LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising the of an individual... unless and until there is an FIR which is lodged or a criminal case which is pending, an LOC cannot be issued." (From Brij Bhushan Kathuria )
Court's Decision
The quashed the LOC against Maria Ramesh on , subject to conditions: she must file an affidavit undertaking cooperation, produce documents as required, intimate travel plans seven days in advance until filing, and seek trial court permission thereafter. The investigating agency or court may reinstate restraints if needed.
This ruling reinforces that LOCs are not perpetual tools and must be justified by ongoing necessity, protecting Article 21 rights. It sets a precedent for quashing prolonged LOCs in cooperative cases, potentially easing travel restrictions in similar economic offense probes and reducing judicial burden from repeated interim pleas. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny on investigation progress before sustaining such measures.
