Bureau Of Immigration Can't Delete LOC On Its Own Without Originator's Request: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bureau of Immigration has not been vested with the jurisdiction to delete a look out circular (LOC) on its own without there being any request from the Originator. Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Bureau of Immigration cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and see if there is sufficient material for opening the LOC, as the materials of such...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bureau of Immigration has not been vested with the jurisdiction to delete a look out circular (LOC) on its own without there being any request from the Originator.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Bureau of Immigration cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and see if there is sufficient material for opening the LOC, as the materials of such nature can only be questioned in a court of competent jurisdiction.
“This indicates that the Bureau of Immigration does not have any say at the time of opening of LOC other than saying that whether the LOC has been issued by the Officer competent under Clause (B) of the Office Memorandum and also cannot delete the LOC on its own unless a request is received from the Originator,” the court said.
Justice Prasad made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by one Rahul Dilip Shah challenging the LOC issued against him by the Bureau of Immigration at the instance of EOW Mumbai.
EOW Mumbai received a complaint from the authorized representative of two companies, Suraksha Realty Limited and Topsoil Developers Private Limited, alleging that Rs.16.45 crores were misused by Shah being the director of DSR Infotech Limited, along with two others.
Rejecting the plea, Justice Prasad said there was no dispute that the LOC was issued at the instance of EOW, Mumbai at the request of the competent officer.
The court said that it was for Shah to appear before the Police Officers in response to the summons issued against him pursuant to registration of FIR.
It noted that even after coming to India in October last year, summons were issued against Shah thrice asking him to appear, which were not complied with by him.
“The constant reluctance on the part of the Petitioner to comply with the summons even after the registration of FIR is a clear indication from the Petitioner that he does not intends to come back to India. The Petitioner is not joining investigation and he apprehends arrest and there is no order granting him any protection from arrest,” the court said.
It added that Shah's attitude in not responding to the summons did not inspire any confidence that he will come back to the country as his presence is not necessary for quashing of the FIR or the proceedings in the NCLT which can be handled through his lawyers.
The court thus observed that it cannot be said that the LOC was opened without any material or basis.
“The Petitioner has no roots in the country and, therefore, this Court does not deem it expedient to quash the LOC issued against the Petitioner at this stage. However, it is always open for the Petitioner to approach the courts of competent jurisdiction for quashing of the LOC after the investigation is concluded or in case the petition under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Srijan Sinha, Mr. Siddharth Garg, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Mr. Vinayak Chitali and Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Mr Rudra Paliwal, GP and Mr. Gurdas Khurana, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for EOW; Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Advocate for Intervener; Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aakanksha Munjal, Mr. Sahil Sethi, Mr. Diwaker Chaturvedi and Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Advocates for Intervener/Yes Bank
Title: RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17