The court quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) because the petitioner cooperated with the SFIO investigation and other senior officials in the same case had their LOCs quashed, making the continued restraint on the petitioner's travel arbitrary and disproportionate.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him at the instance of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in connection with the investigation into the affairs of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) and its subsidiary, Jaypee Infratech Limited.

2. As set out in the petition, the petitioner herein was associated with JAL for several years and served as its Whole-Time Director from 14.12.2007 to 30.09.2023. Thereafter, he served as an Advisor with Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited from 01.10.2023 to 31.08.2025 and is presently stated to be serving as an Advisor with Mahabhadra Infrastructure Private Limited since 01.12.2025. It is stated that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of its powers under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, vide order dated 21.04.2020, had directed an investigation into the affairs of JAL and another company and entrusted the same to the SFIO. In connection with the said investigation, the petitioner was summoned by the SFIO under Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 15.02.2021. He had appeared before the Investigating Officer and had subsequently furnished replies dated 24.02.2021 and 08.03.2021. Upon a further notice dated 18.02.2022 seeking information concerning JAL and its subsidiaries, the petitioner had furnished additional documents on 22.04.2022. Thereafter, vide summons dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner was again called upon to appear before the SFIO on 04.08.2025. The petitioner duly appeared and furnished a written reply dated 04.08.2025 along with the information sought from him.

3. In the meantime, at the instance of the SFIO, an LOC came to be issued against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid investigation and has continued to remain in operation. Aggrieved by the continuation of the said LOC, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the continuation of the LOC against the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is submitted that the petitioner has consistently cooperated with the investigation conducted by the SFIO and has appeared before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned, besides furnishing the information and documents sought from him from time to time. It is further submitted that no criminal case or FIR is pending against the petitioner, nor has any non-bailable warrant been issued against him. There is also no material to suggest that the petitioner has ever attempted to evade the investigation or that he poses any flight risk. Thus, the continued restraint on the petitioner’s right to travel abroad, despite the investigation having remained pending for several years, is arbitrary and disproportionate and violative of his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned counsel further submits that LOCs issued at the instance of the SFIO against several other persons associated with JAL and Jaypee Infratech Limited, arising out of the same investigation, have already been quashed by this Court. Reference in this regard is made to the orders passed in W.P.(C) 6534/2023, W.P.(C) 14468/2021, W.P.(C) 3607/2022, W.P.(C) 4124/2023, W.P.(C) 7967/2022 and W.P.(C) 1055/2024. It is, therefore, contended that there exists no justification for continuing the LOC aga