Look Out Circulars must adhere strictly to legal frameworks and cannot deny fundamental rights without justifiable grounds.

ORDER

% 09.01.2026

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 , essentially seeking quashing of Look Out Circular (hereinafter referred to as „LOC‟), issued against the petitioner. For the sake of clarity, the prayer clause is extracted as under: -

“(i) To declare and issue a Writ of Mandamus, Certoirari and/or an appropriate writ of similar nature, thereby setting aside/quashing the illegally opened Look-Out Circular (LOC) if any, against the Petitioner

by the Respondents; and,

(ii) Direct the Respondents to service the notice of the Look Out Circular (LOC) as the same has not been received by the Petitioner till date, further directing the Respondents not to take any action on the LOC

issued against the Petitioner; and

(iii) Direct the Respondents to remove the name of the Petitioner from the list of persons against whom LOC Opened; and (iv) Direct the Respondents to provide information regarding all subsisting LOCs which have been opened against the Petitioner herein;

and (v) Direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to travel abroad without any restrictions being imposed or coercive steps being taken against him; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Office memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing No. 25016/31/2010-Imm, and the Office memorandum dated 05.12.2017 bearing no.25016/10/2017-Imm [Pt.], and the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2018 bearing no. 25016/10/2017-Imm [Pt] and the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2018 bearing No. 25016/10/2017-Imm [Pt] issued by the Respondent No. 1 -

Ministry of Home Affairs; and (vii) Pass any other order or such further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances for which act of kindness the humble Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. The facts of the case would manifest that in the year 2010, the petitioner was diagnosed with epilepsy while he was in USA. He claims to have undergone treatment in Boston by Dr. Andrew J. Cole. After undergoing the treatment, he came to know that one FIR bearing No.220/2021 was registered at PS Kotwali Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, On the basis of the material in the said FIR, on 19.09.2022, an ECIR bearing No.KLZO-I/ 20 /2022 was registered.

3. The petitioner claims to be residing in Delhi and presently operating a start-up company in the name of Iquippo Services Pvt. Ltd. in Gurugram. He states that on 31.03.2023, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted certain searches at the residence of the petitioner at Kolkata and Delhi, and when he was to fly to USA via Dubai, he was restrained at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) and was informed about the existence of the LOC. Pursuant to the search, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner.

4. Since the petitioner was required to travel to the United States owing to a subsequent medical ailment, he was constrained to approach this Court.

5. The petitioner contends that he is neither an accused in the FIR nor named in the ECIR, though his close relatives have been arrayed as accused. It is contended that no FIR or ECIR is pending against the petitioner; rather, an ECIR registered against his family members remains under investigation. According to the petitioner, FIR No. 220/2021, on the basis of which the ECIR was registered, has already been closed, and since the ECIR is founded solely on the material collected therein, its continuation, in view of the settled legal position, cannot be sustained.

6. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submi