JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging a Lookout Circular issued by Respondent No.1/Bureau of Immigration at the instance of Respondent No.2/Bank of Baroda.

2. The facts of the case reveal that in June, 2013, Metaphor Exports Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of garment manufacturing through its Directors Pran Nath Khanna, Mr. Sameer Khanna (the husband of the Petitioner herein) and Ms. Anju Khanna, had approached the erstwhile Bank of Baroda for availing cash credit facilities of Rs.9 crore.

3. It is stated that the Petitioner executed a Deed of Guarantee for repaying the amount disbursed by Respondent No.2/Bank for the cash credit facilities to be extended by the Bank. The Deed of Guarantee, specifically states that the Guarantee shall not exceed Rs. 2.63 crores which is the fair from the value of the property at DLF, Park Place, Gurgaon. The Deed of Guarantee observes that the Petitioner has mortgaged the said property to the company as security for the cash credit for Rs. 9 crore.

4. It is stated by the Bank that cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 7 crore based on the stock and book debts of the company were released and out of the said Rs. 7 crore, a sum of Rs. 5.95 crore was withdrawn by the Directors of the company.

5. It is stated that the amount has been misappropriated. The account of the company was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2014 and on that date, a balance of Rs. 7.26 crore was due and payable by the company.

6. It is stated that Respondent No.2/Bank initiated proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (in short `RDDBFI Act') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing O.A. No. 295/2014 titled as Bank of Baroda v. M/s Metaphor Exports & Anr., and vide Judgment dated 12.02.2017, the learned DRT held that Respondent No.2/Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,95,74,316/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum simple interest from the Petitioner, in terms of the guarantee from the Petitioner.

7. It is also stated that a complaint was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) being FIR No- RC-2192016E0014 against the Petitioner herein and the Directors of the company under Section 420 and 120B IPC read with Section 13 (1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. It is stated that in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, a request was made by the Bank of Baroda for opening a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the Petitioner and the Bureau of Immigration being the executor opened a Lookout Circular against the Petitioner.

9. Material on record discloses that a chargesheet has been filed by the CBI in the abovementioned FIR No- RC-2192016E0014 and the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. She has been kept in column No.12.

10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is not an accused in any offence. He also states that the property being Flat No. PPC-124/12th Floor, Tower No. C, DLF Park Heights, DLF Park Place, DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana, has already been sold by the Bank. He states that an LOC cannot be opened against the Petitioner only for recovery of money.

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the right of a person to free movement including the right to go abroad has been construed as a Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that in view of the fact that civil remedies have already been availed by the Banks against the Petitioner, the LOC issued against the Petitioner deserves to be quashed. He states that the case of the Petitioner cannot be covered by any of the Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under which an LOC can be issued.

12. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Bank, contends that even if there is no cognizable offence under the IPC or any other penal