SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Showik Indrajit Chakraborty – Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation New Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 3135, 3160, 3885 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ayaz Khan, Zahra Charania, Abhinav Chandrachud, Prasanna Bhangale, Janay Jain.
For the Respondents: Kuldeep Patil, Shreeram Shirsat, Tanvi Mate, Tanveer Khan, Shekhar Mane, Karishma Rajesh, P.P. Shinde.

Headnote:

LOCs - Quashing of LOCs - Sections 174 of the Cr.P.C., IPC, NDPS Act - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashing of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against them by the CBI. The petitioners had cooperated with the CBI's investigation into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, and had roots in the society. The CBI had not filed any report or charge-sheet, and the petitioners had not been summoned since September 2021. The petitioners were seeking to travel abroad for professional reasons.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the LOCs were issued without disclosing any reason, as mandated by the Consolidated Guidelines. The court held that the LOCs cannot be kept pending indefinitely, especially when the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and had roots in India. The court quashed and set-aside the LOCs, allowing the authorities to issue LOCs in the future if necessary.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the LOCs issued against the petitioners, and whether they infringed the petitioners' right to travel abroad.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the LOCs were issued without disclosing any reason, as mandated by the Consolidated Guidelines. It emphasized that LOCs cannot be kept pending indefinitely, especially when the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and had roots in India.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the LOCs issued against the petitioners, with the provision for authorities to issue LOCs in the future if necessary.

JUDGMENT :

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

1. By the aforesaid petitions, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside/withdrawal of the Look Out Circulars (‘LOCs’) issued as against them, by the respondent No. 1-CBI.

2. The petitioners i.e. Lt. Colonel Indrajit Chakraborty and his wife-Sandhya Indrajit Chakraborty i.e. petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 3160/2023 are the parents of petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3135/2023 and 3885/2023.

The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 3160/23 is a retired Army Officer, having retired from the Indian Army as a Lt. Colonel. Post retirement, the petitioner No. 1 has settled in Mumbai. The petitioner No. 2 in the said petition, is the wife of the petitioner No. 1, who was working as a teacher in various Army Schools.

It appears that the petitioner-Showik in Writ Petition No. 3135/2023 got employment with Jann Projects Pvt. Ltd. as an Executive, after he was released on bail in an NDPS case. The said Jann Projects Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be a sister concern of The Global Education and Leadership Foundation (‘GELF’). According to the petitioner, he is presently working as a Senior Manager for entrepreneurship at the GELF and as such, is required to play an active role in developing partnerships as well as in expanding the vision of the GELF to as many countries as possible. According to the petitioner, he has closely worked with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Startup Hub, in executing the G20 DIA Mega Summit. It is the petitioner’s case, that considering the nature of his work, he is required to travel abroad.

The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3855/2023 is an actress appearing in Hindi films. According to the petitioner, she has hosted several television shows, endorsements and a number of brands.

3. On 14th June 2020, Sushant Singh Rajput committed suicide at his residence at Bandra. Pursuant thereto, the Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and commenced inquiry under Sections 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) to ascertain the cause of death.

4. It appears that during the course of inquiry, the Mumbai Police recorded the statements of several persons. It appears that during the pendency of the said inquiry, conducted by the Mumbai Police, Sushant Singh Rajput’s father-Krishna Kishore Singh lodged an FIR with the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna, which was registered vide C.R. No. 241/2020 as against the aforesaid petitioners and others under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). Considering that even the Mumbai Police were conducting an inquiry and since an FIR was registered in Patna, though the cause of action had arisen in Mumbai, the petitioner- Rhea Chakraborty filed a transfer petition being Transfer Petition (Cri.) No. 225/2020 in the Supreme Court. In the interregnum, pending the Transfer Petition before the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar handed over the investigation of C.R. No. 241/2020 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) to investigate the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. The Transfer Petition (Cri.) No. 225/2020 preferred by the petitioner-Rhea Chakraborty before the Supreme Court was decided on 19th August 2020. The Apex Court directed the CBI to investigate the case i.e. into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. During the course of investigation, the CBI summoned several persons including the petitioners, against whom an FIR was registered and recorded their statements during the course of investigation. The petitioners were last called/summoned by the CBI sometime in September 2021.

5. The petitioner-Rhea Chakraborty came to be arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’) Mumbai, on 8th September 2020, in connection with an NDPS Case. Petitioner- Showik Chakraborty also came to be arrested in the said NDPS case on 4th September 2020. The charges alleged as against Rhea Chakraborty and Showik Chakraborty were in contravention of Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top