The settlement of the main dispute, absence of flight risk, and cooperation with the investigation are crucial factors in determining the validity of a Look Out Circular.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Jitendra Kejriwal seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (`LOC') issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI') against him and calling for records pertaining to the same.

3. The background of this petition is that the Petitioner had obtained certain loans/credit facilities from Punjab National Bank (hereinafter `the Bank') which was then called the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The said Bank had, on 9th September, 2019 declared the Petitioner as a `Wilful Defaulter'.

4. The said declaration was challenged by the Petitioner by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11426/2019 titled `Jitendra Kejriwal v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr.' wherein vide order dated 24th October, 2019, the said declaration was stayed till further orders.

5. Upon the Petitioner having been declared a `Wilful Defaulter', on 4th November, 2019, the Petitioner acquired the knowledge that an LOC was issued against him at the behest of the Bank, which restrained him from travelling abroad, at the Kolkata Airport.

6. The case of the Petitioner is that the said LOC was contrary to the interim order granted by this Court on 24th October, 2019. Thus, the said LOC was challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 13117/2019 titled `Jitendra Kejriwal v. Union of India & Ors.'.

7. The court disposed of the said writ petition, vide order dated 18th February, 2022 recorded as a part of the submissions in the said order that the LOC issued at the behest of the Bank had already automatically expired. It is also observed in the said order that a fresh LOC had been issued at the behest of the CBI which had registered an FIR on 13th March, 2020 under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. In view of the issuance of the second LOC, the Court permitted the Petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law with respect to the second LOC issued at the behest of the CBI. The said order reads as under:

"This matter is being heard through video-conferencing

1. When the matter was listed on February 16, 2022, learned counsel for the Bank had sought time to take instructions.

2. Today, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate appears for the respondent No.3/Bank states that after October 01, 2021, as there was no request by the respondent No.3/Bank to the concerned Authority for extending the LOC, the LOC has automatically expired.

3. This submission is disputed by Mr. Asheesh Jain by stating that as per the recent guidelines, till such time a request for withdrawing the LOC is received from the originator, the LOC continues to stand. Mr. Jain also states that there is a second LOC issued against the petitioner at the behest of the CBI. This LOC is pursuant to an FIR by CBI being RC/DDI2020/E/0015CBIBSFB/New Delhi dated March 13, 2020 under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PAC, Act 1988 and the same is in vogue/operation today as well.

4. Mr. Gupta at this stage states that an intimation in that regard shall be sent to the Bureau of Immigration within two weeks.

5. Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, learned counsel for the petitioner states in view of the submission of Mr. Gupta, the petition be disposed of and on the second LOC, the petitioner shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

6. In view of the submissions made, the petition and connected application(s) are disposed of, as nothing survives with regard to the limited challenge in this petition."

8. The present petition has been filed in respect of the second LOC issued at the behest of the CBI.

9. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has settled with the Bank and has paid a sum of Rs.52.66 crores, in respect of which a no-dues certificate has also been issued by the Bank on 6th July, 2021. The registration of the FIR is however not disputed. The CBI has also