$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 7th January, 2022 Decided on: 28th January, 2022 + W.P.(CRL) 249/2019 SHRI SATHISH BABU SANA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Stuti Gujral, Mr.Sahil Ghai, Ms.Rudrali Patil and Mr.Sheikh Bakhtiyar, Advocates.

versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Spl.P.P. for CBI with Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Advocate with Inspector Sushil Dewan.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(CRL) 249/2019 CRL.M.A.1700/2019 (stay)

1. By this petition, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the lookout circular (in short ‘LOC’) issued by respondent against the petitioner in relation to RC No.224/2017/A-001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above noted RC was registered against four named accused namely Moin Akhtar Qureshi, Aditya Sharma, Pradeep Koneru and A.P. Singh and other unknown persons/public servants. The petitioner was not named in the RC however, was summoned as witness number of times, which the petitioner joined. Petitioner was a witness in this case is evident from the fact that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Till date, the investigation of the respondent is not complete and the petitioner has not been sent as an accused for trial. It is submitted that the LOC qua the two named accused in the FIR, i.e. Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru have been quashed by the learned Special Court and this Court respectively however, it subsists qua the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has always cooperated in the investigation and in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as ILR 2010 VI Delhi 706 Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors. and other decisions no ground for opening of the LOC or the continuation thereof is made out. According to the petitioner he is a businessman and has huge investment in India and for the purpose of his business, he has to often travel overseas. Between October, 2017 to October, 2018 the petitioner joined the investigation with the respondent approximately 9-10 times however, when he was at the immigration at Hyderabad Airport on 25th September, 2019 he was stopped when he came to know that a LOC had been opened against him.

3. It is contended that the petitioner being a victim is a complainant in another FIR lodged by the CBI being RC No.13(A)/2018/CBI/AC-III despite the fact that the petitioner is a victim and till date neither arrested nor charge-sheeted and has joined the investigation, the LOC was opened in a most casual manner without following the principles of law laid down by this Court. Even if the petitioner is required for investigation, the same does not permit the investigating agency to destroy the personal freedom of a citizen as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as

2013 (6) SCC 740 Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Palanisamy.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. for CBI refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though no charge-sheet has been filed however, the petitioner is required for investigation. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the LOC, as the petitioner has travelled abroad after seeking necessary permission from the competent Court. It is further stated that the LOC of the two named accused Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Pradeep Koneru was quashed subject to stringent conditions.

5. As per the reply filed by the CBI, the above–noted FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 31st August, 2016 received from the Assistant Director, Delhi Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement duly forwarded by the Director of Enforcement alleging that Moin Akhtar Qureshi had been liaisoning and obtaining illegal money from various persons for getting their work done through public servants. Analysis of the records and BBM chat data for the year 2011 to 2013 revels that Moin Akhtar Qureshi had