Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHA MENON, J.
Sucheta Omprakash Goenka – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Through The Investigating Officer & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (Crl) 612 of 2022, Crl. M.A. 9192 of 2022
Decided on : 01-06-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Shweta Singh, Ms. Samten Doma, Mr. Anurag Andely, Ms. Trisita Parashar & Mr. Deep Narayan Sarkar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, GP with Mr. Arib Ansari, Company Prosecutor (SFIO), Mr. Tarun Srivastava & Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Law Consultants (SFIO).
The court balanced personal reasons for travel with ongoing investigations and imposed specific conditions to address concerns raised by the SFIO, Delhi.
Headnote:
Travel Permission - Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Sections 409/420/120B IPC - The court discussed the applicant's request for permission to travel to Dubai in the context of lookout notices issued by the SFIO, Delhi, and the ongoing investigations related to economic offenses. The court allowed the applicant to travel to Dubai for 8 weeks with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought permission to travel to Dubai due to personal reasons, but the SFIO, Delhi had issued lookout notices in connection with ongoing investigations related to economic offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the applicant to travel to Dubai for 8 weeks with specific conditions, considering the humanitarian aspect of the request and the ongoing investigations.
Issues: Permission to travel despite lookout notices, humanitarian considerations, cooperation with investigations
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the applicant's personal reasons for travel with the ongoing investigations and imposed specific conditions to address the concerns raised by the SFIO, Delhi.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applicant to travel to Dubai for 8 weeks with specific conditions, including providing details of residence, no disposal of assets, and restrictions on bank transactions.
JUDGMENT :
Crl. M.A. 5243/2022
1. This order will dispose of the application [Crl. M.A. 5243/2022], whereby the applicant/petitioner seeks permission to travel to Dubai.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari and mandamus directing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Delhi not to restrict or impede the foreign travels of the applicant by issuing various directions in CR No. 14/2018, registered by Economic Crime Branch under Sections 409/420/120B IPC. It is the case of the applicant that due to lookout notices issued by the SFIO, Delhi in respect of the said crime No. 14/2018, she was unable to travel freely to Dubai, despite the permission granted to her by the High Court of Bombay.
3. Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submitted that in respect of the lookout notice issued by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai, the Bombay High Court had, pending disposal of the writ petition, granted bail to the applicant and permission to travel to Dubai. However, when she tried to leave the country pursuant to this permission granted by the Bombay High Court, she was detained as the SFIO Delhi office had also issued a lookout notice. In the circumstances, the petition has been moved.
4. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking permission to go to Dubai for a period of 8 weeks. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that she being in her early 40’s was seeking to settle into matrimony, for which purpose, she wished to go to Dubai. It is his case that the proposals had to be negotiated, so that she could marry at the earliest, but on account of her absence from Dubai, nothing had fructified. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as this involved humanitarian consideration, the request should be viewed compassionately by the court and permission granted.
5. In opposition Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/SFIO submitted that the applicant was a high flight risk. She was the principal beneficiary of the diversion of funds by her father and she was not cooperating with the investigations.
6. To this, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the companies under investigations were Twinkle Enviro Tech Pvt. Ltd. (“TETPL”), Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. (“RTSCPL”) and Citrus Check-Inns Ltd. (“CCIL”) in which she has absolutely no role as she was not even a Director. It was submitted that though since 2018, the applicant has been in Mumbai, she was called for investigations only in 2021, when she fully participated in them. As regards the details of bank accounts located in Dubai which were in her name, namely, (i) Mashreq Bank, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, (ii) National Bank of Fajairah, Bank Street, Dubai, (iii) National Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK Bank), Makhtoum Street Branch, Dubai, (iv) National Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK Bank), Makhtoum Street Branch, Dubai & (v) HSBC (UAE), Ibn Batuta Branch, Dubai, since she had lost her Residence Status in Dubai, the banks were not willing to disclose the details online and, therefore, if she was permitted to go to Dubai, she would also be able to furnish all details, after collecting the same personally.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submitted that the three companies, namely, TETPL and CCIL had collected a sum of Rs. 12318 Crores from the public in the guise of “Holiday Plan Schemes” and “Time-Share Holidays” from investors during the period between 2000 and 2015 and only a sum of Rs. 6737 Crores were returned to these investors. Investigations had revealed that the money had been transferred through RTSCPL and 86 other subsidiary companies, collectively referred to as Companies under Investigations (“CUIs”) in which the applicant was a Director. She was discharging key functions including finalization of the financial accounts of the company. She had received funds from her father Sh. Om Prakash Goenka through unsecured loans and inv
