The issuance of a Lookout Circular must be justified by the necessity to secure individuals to justice, and it is subject to judicial review when it adversely affects personal liberty.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

The writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from infringing the petitioner's right to travel abroad with his wife and two children by withdrawing the Lookout Circular issued at the instance of the first respondent against the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partner in Kriti Textiles since 2020 and was also acting in the capacity of General Manager (Operations) of M/s.Surana Industries Limited and he resigned on 30.11.2017. He also acted as Additional Director of Surana Green Energy Private Limited from 27.05.2016 and Surana Green Power Private Limited from 27.05.2016. While so, the first respondent initiated investigation on 28.10.2019 and after completion of the investigation, a complaint is also now filed and taken on file as Special C.C.No.1 of 2023 before the XV Additional City Civil Court (Special Court for SFIO) for the alleged offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 . The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.27. The petitioner was not even arrested with reference to the said case and the petitioner is regularly appearing before the said Court and has also filed Crl.M.P.No.4186 of 2023 under Section 88 of Cr.P.C and the same is pending. Therefore, the Lookout Circular that is issued against the petitioner is absolutely without any basis and there is no apprehension that the petitioner is at flight risk or that the petitioner's travelling abroad will be detrimental to the case of the prosecution. In the circumstances, when the petitioner has made repeated representations to revoke the Lookout Circular, the same has not been done and therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The writ petition is resisted by the first respondent by filing a counter affidavit. The details of the transactions with reference to the said Surana Group of Companies which was found to be fraudulent and were investigated are all given in the counter affidavit. Suffice it to state that by way of siphoning off funds etc., it is alleged that huge amounts of money is said to have been siphoned off and misappropriated by the persons involved with the said Surana Group of Companies, which includes the petitioner also. It is asserted that the loss suffered by various financial institutions are to the tune of Rs.8000 Crores. Therefore, the charge sheet is filed and the prosecution is pending.

4. It is the further contention on behalf of the respondents that already pursuant to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Government of India has also issued Office Memorandum in No.25016/10/2017-Imm(Pt.) dated 10.08.2021, by which it has been now recognized that the Courts before which the trial is pending are also empowered to deal with the revocation of the Lookout Circulars. Therefore, the petitioner if at all makes an application to travel abroad, the trial Court itself, at the time of granting permission to the petitioner, can order revocation of the Lookout Circular and in the event the trial Court granting permission, this writ petition need not be entertained.

5. Heard Ms.Ramya Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Reiterating the aforesaid submissions that were made, the learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Karti P Chidambaram -vs- Bureau of Immigration and Others reported in 2018 SCC Online Madras 2229 to contend that the issue of Lookout Circular is on a limited premise of securing the absconding persons to justice. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner never absconded and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not even arrested. He is appearing before the trial Court for all the hearings. No ground at all existed in the first place to issue the Lookout Circular itself. Relying upon paragraphs 71 to 74 of the said judgment, the learned counsel would submit that this Court, under Article 226 should interfere with the matter and grant relief to the pet