The Special Court has the jurisdiction to consider the withdrawal of LOC, and the petitioner can approach the Special Court for seeking withdrawal of the LOC and permission to travel.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - By this order, I shall decide the objection taken by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for the respondent No. 1 appearing with Mr. amit Mahajan (who appears for respondents) that the present petition shall not be maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner must approach the concerned Special Court where the Complaint Case No. 75/2019 filed by the respondent No.1, of which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court by issuing summons to the petitioner herein for appearance on april 30, 2022 is pending. By this order I shall also decide the application filed by the petitioner being CM aPPL.11855/2022, wherein the following prayers have been made:-

'In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated herein above, it is hereby most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may:-

i. Direct the suspension of LOC issued against the Petitioner from 14.03.2022 to 29.04.2022 and further allow her to travel to Dubai and Italy during the said period, in the interest of justice.

ii. any other order which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances and in the interest of justice;

It is prayed accordingly.'

2. The submission of Mr. Hossain as noted by this Court in the order dated January 03, 2022 for deciding the said issue is reproduced as under:-

'3. Today, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though an email has been addressed to the concerned authorities to verify the aforesaid position, no response thereto has been received till date.

4. In the light of the aforesaid and taking judicial notice of the fact that new variant of Covid-19 i.e. Omicron is creating havoc in the entire world, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be denied the opportunity of being administered a booster dose in UaE, especially, when she had taken the earlier two doses of the Covid vaccination in the UaE itself. It may be also noted that the petitioner has already been granted permission to travel abroad several times, which liberty she has never misused. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has, on 17.12.2021, in another case pending against the petitioner, granted her permission to travel abroad for a period of four months, subject to certain conditions.

5. The application, therefore, deserves to be and is allowed by permitting the petitioner to travel to the UaE for a period of eight weeks, which permission would be subject to conditions already imposed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner will return back to the country within eight weeks of her departure from the country.

6. all concerned authorities shall act in compliance with the digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, which shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant.

W.P.(C) 8084/2020

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of a prosecution complaint having been filed against the petitioner in respect of the offence for which the impugned LOC was issued, cognizance whereof has already been taken by the learned trial Court, the present writ petition would no longer be maintainable and if aggrieved the petitioner ought to approach the learned trial Court.

8. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes this plea, the aspect regarding maintainability of the writ petition will be considered on the next date.'

3. Some of the relevant facts as noted from the record and also highlighted by the counsel for the parties are, in 2017 the petitioner was arrested at Chennai airport on the basis of a Look-out Circular ('LOC', for short). She was granted bail by this Court on December 15, 2017 and was arraigned as an accused in the third supplementary complaint filed on September 13, 2017 in ECIR No. ECIR/15/DLZO/2014 dated July 03, 2014, i.