Look Out Circulars cannot be issued indefinitely without valid reasons, as they infringe on the right to travel freely under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Halwasia, waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.3–State.

3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the Look Out Circular (‘LOC’), issued against him, at the behest of the respondent No.1-Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not an accused in the case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W), Mumbai and in the charge-sheet filed by the E.O.W, as against the petitioner’s father. He submits that though the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) had filed prosecution complaints in 2019 in the matter of Pancard Clubs Limited, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused by the SEBI, in any of the said complaints. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cases are against Pancard Clubs Limited and its Directors and that the petitioner at no point of time was either a shareholder or a director of Pancards Club Limited. He submits that the petitioner has cooperated in the SFIO investigation and has reported to the office of the SFIO, as and when summoned i.e. on 19th January 2021; 11th January 2022; 2nd March 2022 and 15th September 2022. He submits that even the petitioner had sent emails/communications to the SFIO, furnishing necessary details/information as sought for, on 3 occasions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 3 earlier occasions the petitioner was permitted to travel overseas and as such the petitioner has travelled overseas and has complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. He further submits that the petitioner’s mother, a senior citizen, his wife and one school going child, are residing with him. He submits that the SFIO after investigation has filed a complaint in February 2024, however, cogzinance of the said complaint has not been taken by the concerned Court, till date. Since, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is required to travel overseas regularly for business purpose, the LOC issued against the petitioner, be quashed.

5. Mr. Halwasia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the petitioner can seek permission of this Court, whenever he intends to travel instead of quashing the LOC, more particularly since cognizance of the SFIO’s complaint is still to be taken. He submits that an total amount of Rs.4,72,00,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner's account from Pancard Clubs Limited and that the petitioner has purchased lands from these monies. Mr. Halwasia, relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Chaitya Shah v/s Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3967, and Ramesh Himatlal Shah v/s Union of India and Others, [Cr. Writ Petition No.3009 of 2021, decided on 5th July 2022], in support of his submission that LOC ought not to be quashed.

6. Perused the papers.

7. The petitioner is the son of an accused Late Sudhir Moravekar. It is not in dispute, that the E.O.W has registered an FIR as against the petitioner's father and others (not the petitioner) and that after investigation, E.O.W has filed charge-sheet in the said case, as against the petitioner’s father and other accused on 30th October 2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the said case registered by the E.O.W. It also appears that the SEBI has filed several prosecution complaints in the matter of Pancard Clubs Limited in 2019. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused by SEBI in any of the said complaints. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a director of the said Pancard Club