The court emphasized the authority of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the necessity of the Petitioner's presence for effective investigation into the affairs of Gitanjali Gems Limited and other concerns.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - The Petitioner has approached this Court for various reliefs. The main relief claimed by the Petitioner is for quashing and setting aside of the Look-Out Circular (for short, LOC) issued against him. There are other consequential prayers made in the Petition.

2. The Respondent No.1 is the Union of India, the Respondent No.2 is the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Respondent No.3 is the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and the Respondent No.4 is the State of Maharashtra.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a Non-Resident Indian citizen holding Indian Passport which was valid till 2nd May 2028. The Petitioner is a resident of Hongkong where he was residing with his wife and two daughters for the past nine years. He is the Managing Director of Chaitya Private Limited, which is a Company incorporated in Hongkong and which deals in the trade of diamonds and other precious stones. The Petitioner and his family were scheduled to travel from New Delhi to Hongkong on 10th September 2020 from New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport. While the Petitioner was in the process of boarding the flight, he was denied permission to go past the immigration check. The Immigration Officer put a stamp "cancelled without prejudice" on the passport of the Petitioner and did not permit him to travel. The Petitioner was detained at the Airport. On the next day i.e. on 11th September 2020 he was served with a summons issued from the office of the Respondent No.3 directing him to appear in person in their Mumbai Zonal Office on 11th September 2020 i.e. on the same day on which the summons was served upon him. The Petitioner was prevented from travelling abroad because LOC was issued against him by the Respondent No.3.

4. According to the Petitioner, he appeared before the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Respondent No.3 in compliance with the summons issued. The Respondent No.3 was investigating into the affairs of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited under Section 212(1)(c), (d) of the Companies Act, 2013.

5. On 11th September 2020 another summons was issued calling upon the Petitioner to appear in person before the office of the Respondent No.3 on 18th September 2020. On this occasion also the Petitioner duly attended and according to him he fully co-operated with the investigation. According to the Petitioner, he had purchased the shares of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited. One Mr. Mehul Choksi was one of its Directors against whom criminal proceedings were initiated by the Respondent No.3 and other investigating agencies. According to the Petitioner, he was a bonafide investor who had purchased 68,02,896 convertible warrants of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited worth Rs.49,25,71,553/- between January 2015 and August 2016. Those warrants were converted into equity shares on 5th October 2015 and 9th August 2016. They were sold between the period of 28th November 2017 to 26th December 2017 for total sale consideration of Rs.50,51,42,923/-. These transactions were conducted through the banking channels. The Petitioner has stated that the money used for purchasing the shares belonged to the Petitioner and it had nothing to do with Mr. Mehul Choksi.

6. Apart from these two summonses, the Respondent No.3 had sent emails dated 12th March 2019 and 3rd December 2019 to the Petitioner calling upon him to furnish the documents in relation to his Companies. It is his case that he has provided all the details available with him and had submitted the same to the Respondent No.3. Through another email dated 22nd February 2021, the Respondent No.3 called for more documents from the Petitioner. On this occasion also the Petitioner furnished the necessary documents. It is his case that after 22nd February 2021, the Petitioner has not received any communication from the Respondent No.3. He was never called for any questioning after 22nd February 2021. Thus, according to the Petitioner, inspite of his full co-operat