Order

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners seeking permission to travel abroad came to be rejected and the Look Out Circular issued against them was maintained.

2. The concise facts of the case are that an FIR No. 158/2026 came to be registered at Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, which is already under challenge before this Court, wherein protection against arrest has also been granted to the petitioners. The petitioners, whose son was scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure in the United States of America, sought temporary permission to travel abroad for attending to him and had placed on record the medical documents, passports and confirmed travel itinerary. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2026, principally on the ground of pending investigation and apprehension of the petitioners leaving India to evade the legal process. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the said order and permission to undertake foreign travel subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Court.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

4. At the outset, it may be noticed that the petitioners are already protected against arrest in connection with the subject FIR pursuant to the order passed by the coordinate Bench, wherein, upon a prima facie consideration of the material on record, the dispute was noticed to have the contours of a transactional dispute. The said protection continues to operate and has neither been vacated nor modified. For ready reference, the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the coordinate Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as the complainant were directors of the company in question. The FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant alleging certain irregularities in the business transactions carried out by the petitioners during the course of business. It is further submitted that the business itself had already been sold in the year 2025 and at the relevant point of time, the complainant as well as the petitioners were all part of the management of the company and were acting as directors.

Learned counsel submits that throughout the period when the business was being run, both sides were jointly associated with the affairs of the company and regular yearly audits were conducted. Thereafter, they have already sold the business together in the year 2025. It is argued that despite the said position, the present FIR has now been lodged on 18.06.2026 alleging certain irregularities pertaining to the previous years, i.e. the period prior to sale of the business.

It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and has arisen on account of disputes between family members, which has been sought to be given a criminal colour. On the aforesaid premises, it is prayed that FIR deserves quashing and the petitioners be protected from coercive action in the meanwhile.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner.

This Court has considered the submissions and perused the record. Prima facie, it appears that complainant and the petitioner were all directors of the company and were associated with the business during the relevant period. Subsequently, both the parties have sold the business in the year 2025 and the FIR has been now lodged on 18.06.2026 alleging irregularities pertaining to earlier period.

At this stage, the matter appears to have overtones o