Delhi High Court Denies UK Travel to 76-Year-Old Director in Rs. 208 Cr Fraud Case, Citing Flight Risk and Available Medical Care in India

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney, a 76-year-old British national and director in a group company under investigation for an alleged Rs. 208 crore fraud, who sought permission to travel to the United Kingdom for urgent medical treatment. Upholding a trial court order, Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 is not absolute and can be curtailed when adequate medical facilities are available within the country, especially given the petitioner's past non-cooperation and high flight risk.

The court balanced the petitioner's personal liberty against the compelling public interest in ensuring that individuals accused of grave economic offences face the legal process.

Background of the Case

The case involves an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) into the affairs of Net4 India Ltd. and its related companies. The petitioner, Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and UK resident, was stopped from returning to the UK in August 2022 due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her.

The SFIO alleges that Mrs. Sawhney, along with her late husband and son, was involved in siphoning approximately Rs. 208 crores. Specifically, she is accused of signing a Master Reseller Agreement (MRA) as a director of a subsidiary, which wrongfully diverted about Rs. 60 crores in revenue from Net4 India Ltd. to a family-controlled entity without requisite corporate approvals. After a lower court denied her permission to travel on October 21, 2024, she approached the High Court for relief.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions: Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Maadhav Khurana, Mrs. Sawhney argued:

- She is a 76-year-old widow suffering from serious health ailments, including arrhythmia and dementia, requiring a specialized pacemaker implant (MICRA AV) in the UK.

- The denial of permission to travel for urgent medical care violates her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

- She was merely a non-executive director with no role in the company's day-to-day management and was unaware of the alleged fraud.

- The investigation is complete, and her continued restriction in India is unjustified, especially as she has cooperated with the authorities.

Respondent's Contentions: The Union of India, represented by CGSC Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, countered that:

- The required medical treatment is readily available at several reputed institutions in India, and the petitioner has not claimed financial inability to access it.

- As a British national with no deep roots in India and a co-accused son residing abroad, she is a significant flight risk.

- The petitioner has a documented history of non-cooperation, including concealing 33 bank accounts, refusing to provide complete bank statements, and appointing an unhelpful representative.

- Her claim of ignorance is contradicted by her own filings with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, where she described herself as a person with "very vast experience in the field of business."

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Dudeja found no merit in the petition, reinforcing the findings of a coordinate bench in previous orders dated December 13, 2022, and August 16, 2023. The court made several key observations:

> On the Plea of Ignorance: "The petitioner’s claim that she was a non-executive Director, a simple housewife having no knowledge... is contrary to her own filing of Form PAS-4 before the MCA, describing her as a person of 'very vast experience in the field of business and allied activities and great industrialist', thereby, belying her plea of ignorance."

> On Past Non-Cooperation: The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had consistently failed to comply with court-imposed conditions, such as furnishing complete bank statements and providing details of her absconding son. The court noted that her "sustained pattern of evasiveness" led to adverse findings that have attained finality and cannot be ignored.

> On Medical Urgency: The court was not persuaded by the plea of medical necessity, stating, "The petitioner has not been able to establish that the requested medical procedure... is unavailable in India." Citing precedents like Mandhir Singh Todd v. ED , the court affirmed that when adequate treatment is available domestically, a mere preference for a foreign facility does not justify allowing an accused in a serious economic offence case to leave the country.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the petitioner's history of non-compliance, her status as a foreign national with an absconding co-accused son, and the availability of requisite medical treatment in India created a "real and subsisting apprehension" that she might not return to face trial.

"This Court is conscious of the principles of personal liberty under Article 21, however, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in ensuring that persons accused of grave economic offences remain amenable to the legal process," the court stated while dismissing the petition.