Look Out Circulars cannot be issued without a cognizable offense, violating fundamental rights, as established by the relevant Office Memorandum.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.

CM APPL. 10253/2021 (for interim stay)

2. The Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the Look Out Circular (hereinafter, `LOC') issued against him by Respondent Nos 3 and 4 i.e., the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter, `MCA') and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter, `SFIO') and prays for the same to be quashed.

3. The brief background of the matter is that the Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant who was inducted in the Board of M/s Techpro Systems Limited, as a Non-Executive Independent Director, in the Annual General Meeting dated 26th September 2007. The Petitioner is working in Oman and relocated there on 24th October, 2009. He is stated to have resigned from the post of Independent Director of M/s Techpro Systems Limited on 13th January, 2015 due to his full time employment in Oman and health concerns. In 2017, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings were initiated against M/s Techpro Systems Limited, and on 5th May 2019, the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that he had travelled to India on 2nd February, 2021 and was scheduled to fly back to Oman on 21st February, 2021. However, he was stopped at the airport and was intimated about the LOC which has been issued against him at the behest of the SFIO. The Petitioner was thereafter issued summons bearing F. No. SFIO/INV/TSL/1304/2020 by the SFIO on 23rd February 2021, through WhatsApp, to personally appear before the Investigating Officer on 2nd March, 2021.

5. This matter was heard in part on 17th March, 2021. Ms. Maninder Acharya, ld. Sr. Counsel, submits on behalf of the Petitioner that a copy of the LOC has not been given to the Petitioner. Reliance is placed upon Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010 and the amendments carried out therein vide Office Memorandum dated 5th December, 2017. It is submitted that the settled position in law is that unless and until an FIR is registered or a cognizable offence is made out, the LOC would be liable to be quashed or set aside, as it curtails the liberty of the Petitioner to travel in and out of India. Reliance is placed on the following three judgments/orders:

• Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director & Ors., [WP(Crl.) No. 1315/2005, decided on 11th August 2010];
• Nitin Sandesara v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., [WP(C) 7559/2017, Order dated 29th August 2018] and;
• Deept Sarup Aggarwal v. Union of India, [WP(C) 5382/2020, decided on 2nd December 2020].

6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's entire family resides in Delhi/NCR. The wife of the Petitioner is a Senior citizen who lives in Delhi/NCR. Both his daughters also live in Delhi/NCR. Out of the two daughters, one of the daughters is married. The younger daughter is unmarried and lives with the Petitioner and his wife. The Petitioner also has several immovable properties in Delhi/NCR. Details of the bank accounts and bank statements of the Petitioner and his two daughters have already been submitted to the SFIO.

7. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was only a Non-Executive Independent Director in M/s Techpro Systems Limited from 2007 to 2015 and has no role to play in the day to day management of the company. None of the allegations against the company or its promoters can be saddled upon the Petitioner.

8. On behalf of the Respondents, a note has been handed over in a sealed cover on the status of the investigation. This Court has perused the said note. The overall allegati