Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 2572 OF 2025
Ramesh Himatlal Shah adult, Indian inhabitant residing at 83, Kamal Building, 69, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai – 400 006 … Petitioner
JUDGMENT
1. Union of India, through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, having office at 274- 276, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Marine Line, Mumbai – 400 020
2. Assistant Director, (Investigation) Serious Fraud Investigating Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, having Regional Office at 6th floor, Fountain Telecom Building -I, Near Central Telegram Office, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
3. State of Maharashtra, Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay. … Respondents … Mr.Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sidharth Samantaray, Ms. Kalyani Wagle i/b. T.N.Tripathi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.S.K.Halwasia, Addl. PP with Ms. S.S. Halwasia for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Gautam Kumar, Assistant Director, SFIO, Regional Office, Mumbai.... CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE: 14th July, 2025 FINAL ORDER (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The Petitioner before us is Ramesh Himatlal Shah, aged about 62 years, residing at 83, Kamal Building, 69, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. He claims to have a major export-import business in the diamond industry. His business is spread across Hong Kong, Belgium, Moscow (Russia), and New York (USA). His permanent residence is in Mumbai, at the address mentioned in the title cause.
3. He has specifically put forth his contentions in paragraph Nos. 5 (i) to (vi), 6 and 7, which read as under:
5. The present Petition is filed to quash LOC in view of new developments, subsequent events, and change in circumstances that have arisen since the dismissal of earlier Writ Petition, including the following:
(i) The investigation is completed. Respondent
No.2 has filed a charge-sheet. Petitioner is not named as an accused in the case. No complaint is filed against the Petitioner and there is no case pending against him. The presence of Petitioner is not required in any proceeding;
(ii) Respondent No.2 has made repeated statement before this Hon'ble Court as recorded in the orders dated 16/12/2022, 21/02/2023, 12/12/2023, 15/04/2024 and 11/06/2024 that there is no flight risk in the case of the Petitioner;
(iii) The matter is unnecessarily dragged and after order dated 05/07/2022 the Petitioner is never called for any investigation or information by the Respondent No.2;
(iv) The LOC was suspended/stayed during a substantial period between 24/06/2023 to 20/01/2025 without causing any inconvenience or prejudice to Respondent No.2.
(v) The Petitioner has travelled 27 occasions and has returned to India within the stipulated period and complied with all the conditions imposed upon him.
(vi) In the situation now prevailing and in changed circumstances, the continuation of LOC against the Petitioner is an abuse and misuse of the process of law and its quashing will secure the end of justice.
6. In view of new developments and change in circumstances that have arisen since the dismissal of earlier Writ Petition, the present Writ petition in maintainable as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh [(1975) 3 SCC 706] and State represented by DSP, SB CID, Chennai v. K. V. Rajendran [(2008) 8 SCC 673].
7. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for justice which is denied to him.
4. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) reads as under:
5. In view of the above, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clause 16 (a) which reads as under: “a. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondents to forthwith withdraw travel restrictions and LOC issued against the Petitioner”.
6. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr.Thakkar, submits that a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued on 3rd September, 2021, which came to the knowledge of the Petitioner on 2nd December, 2021. When he desired to travel to USA along with his son, he was stopped at the airport. Thereafter, the Petitioner has travelled abroad quite frequently, but, only after obtaining appropriate orders from this Court, which have been granted on several occasions. He has abided by the directions issued to him and has discharged his obligations with regard to the conditions that were imposed upon him while the LOC was suspended to enable him to travel abroad. There is no allegation against him that he has violated any of the conditions imposed on him.
7. Mr.Thakkar further submits that the Petitioner’s wife was suffering from cancer. In 2021, the Petitioner had requested suspension of the LOC on a few occasions in order to accompany her abroad for medical treatment. She has subsequently passed away.
8. The ground for filing this Petition is that, since the entire investigation with regard to the Petitioner’s conduct and purported involvement in any offence, has concluded, the LOC may now be cancelled.
9. The learned Advocate, Mr.Halwasia, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., Union of India and the Assistant Director (Investigation), Serious Fraud Investigating Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, having its office at Mumbai on the address mentioned in the title cause, submitted that the case of the Petitioner is now referred to the Director, SFIO, New Delhi. After the investigation, a procedure is required to be followed for lodging a complaint before the Sessions Court. When we put to him a specific query as to ‘whether it could be said that, since no material was found against the present Petitioner during the investigation, no complaint has been lodged against him’, his answer was in the ‘negative’.
10. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Assistant Director of SFIO, having his office in Mumbai, sought our permission to address the Court, as he had a more detailed information available with him. We permitted him to make his submissions. He informed us in his address that no material was found against the present Petitioner, Ramesh Shah, during the investigation. The file was forwarded to the Director, SFIO, New Delhi. That file was forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government has not granted sanction to lodge a complaint against the present Petitioner before the Sessions Court since there is no material against him. The investigation did not reveal anything objectionable about his conduct or involvement in any offence. He is not required for further investigation, and the LOC need not be continued. He is also not named in the chargesheet.
11. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the prayer clause 16(a).
12. The LOC dated 3rd September, 2021, stands quashed and set aside. The concerned authority, Respondent No. 2 herein, shall intimate the Immigration Authorities at all points of departure from this country, that the LOC is quashed.
13. Needless to state, the aforesaid order is restricted to the case brought before this Court in the present Petition and shall not be applicable to any other case wherein any restriction has been imposed upon the Petitioner or that the Petitioner is an accused.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)