Telangana High Court
Mr. Habib Abdul Razzaq Nadi Ali … vs The Bureau Of Immigration on 10 June, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.8276 of 2025
DATE OF ORDER: 10.06.2026
Between:
Mr. Habib Abdul Razzaq Hadi Ali AlBaghdadi,
S/o. Late Mohammed Ali
...Petitioner
AND
The Bureau of Immigration,
Rep. by its Secretary,
East Block-VIII, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi- 110066 & 2 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent
No.3 in issuing lookout circular (for short “LOC”) against the petitioner
in connection with ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020. A consequential prayer is
sought to quash / set-aside the lookout circular to enable the
petitioner to travel from or to India without any detention or arrest in
any immigration (entry or exit) point in India by the respondents.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
2
The petitioner submits that he is the Managing Director of M/s.
Hira Multi Construction Ventures Private Limited (for short “the
company”), incorporated on 26.03.1998 under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 in the name of M/s. Hira Management
Consultant Private Limited. On 17.03.2013, the name of the company
was changed to Hira Multi Construction Ventures Private Limited.
The petitioner and his family members are residents of Riyadh,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The petitioner submits that he is the
employee of Prince Abdulaziz Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud for the
last 40 years.
The petitioner, his company and his immediate family members
and one Mirza Firasath Baig claims to own and possess land
admeasuring Ac.186-33 guntas, which was purchased during the
years 1998 and 2010 by way of various registered sale deeds in
Survey Nos.22, 40, 77, 78/A/B/C, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 90 situated at
Manneguda Village and in Survey Nos.87 and 88/1 situated at
Yenkepally Village, Pudur Mandal, Rangareddy District, Vikarabad.
The petitioner sold 27 plots admeasuring 500 square yards to
26 persons under registered sale deeds between 2010 and 2013 under
a proposed layout known as Hi Grove County. Thereafter, one M/s.
Kancharla Constructions Private Limited made proposal to the
company, petitioner and his immediate family members to develop
land to an extent of Ac.186.33 guntas into Golf Course and Golf
3
Residential Community. The petitioner and other land owners entered
into three registered Development Agreements – cum – General Power
of Attorney (for short “DAGPA”) vide document Nos.3600/2016, dated
29.04.2016, 4843/2026, dated 24.05.2016 and 6365/2016, dated
24.05.2016 with M/s. Kancharla Constructions Private Limited
represented by its Managing Director K.Prithvi Reddy. It is further
submitted that in DAGPA No.3600/2016, dated 29.04.2016, an extent
of Ac.7-00 guntas out of Ac.50-00 guntas was demarked and excluded
from development and the lands which were sold to 26 persons were
also excluded from DAGPA. It is further submitted that prior to
entering development agreements, persons, who purchased the plots
were given option to seek equal extent after development or to have
cancelled all the sale deeds with the repayment of sale consideration
with profit. Thereafter, five plot owners got their sale deeds cancelled.
It is further submitted that the mother of plot owner in plot No.549 by
name Ameena Fatima with respect to the registered document
No.3750/2010 admeasuring 500 square yards and the mother of plot
owner in plot No.550 by name Areeba Fatima with respect to the
registered document No.3749/2010 admeasuring 500 square yards,
had agreed for cancellation of sale deeds and received payments vide
cheque Nos.291690, dated 29.11.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/-, 291691,
dated 09.12.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- and 291692, dated 27.12.2016
for Rs.2,00,000/-, in total Rs.7,00,000/- and accordingly receipts
were issued mentioning that the amount has been refunded for
4
cancellation. Disputes arose between the company and M/s.
Kancharla Constructions Private Limited. On instigation of the said
M/s. Kancharla Constructions Private Limited, some of the 26
purchasers lodged complaints in F.I.R.Nos.6/2018, 65/2018,
246/2018, 249/2018, 250/2018 and 251/2018. M/s. Kancharla
Constructions Private Limited allotted plots to the company.
Thereafter, M/s.Kancharla Constructions Private Limited had not only
sold its share of plots, but also sold the plots allotted to share of the
company and individuals. The petitioner challenged the F.I.R.s in
Crl.P.Nos.8958/2018, 8878/2018, 12942/2018, 12944/2018,
12945/2018, 12951/2018 and 12958/2018. This Court granted stay
of all further proceedings which was extended from time to time.
Thereafter, the owner of plot No.549 i.e. Ameena Fatima in DAGPA
No.3600/2016, dated 29.04.2016, without intimation to the petitioner
or the company, transferred Rs.7.00 lakhs to the petitioner’s Company
by RTGS on 15.12.2018 and lodged a complaint on 18.12.2018 before
PS Chengomol, Manneguda, Vikarabad, alleging that plot bearing
No.549 sold to Ameena Fatima was also given for development without
her knowledge and consent. On the said complaint, F.I.R.No.173 of
2018 was registered against the petitioner and his family members for
the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 504 of IPC. Subsequently,
the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.2098 of 2019 for quashing of F.I.R.No.173
of 2018 against Ameena Fatima, i.e. owner of Plot No.549 in the
DAGPA No.3600/2016, dated 29.04.2016. The said criminal petition
5
i.e. Crl.P.No.2098 of 2019 was directed to be posted along with
Crl.P.No.1298/2020 and batch and no stay was granted in view of the
fact that stay was already granted in the connected cases.
The Crime Investigation Department (for short “CID”) filed a
charge sheet against the petitioner and his son by name Mohammed
Haji Ali and also added names of wife and daughter of the petitioner
with new Sections viz., Sections 420, 406, 447 and 506 read with 34
of IPC and charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.330 of 2020 on the file of
learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy
District (hereinafter referred as “trial court”). It is further submitted
that the petitioner was employed in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and could not travel to India to attend the proceedings due to his
physical ailments. It is further submitted that one Mr. Govind Singh,
IPS, Additional DG of Police, CID, EOW, purchased 500 square yards
of plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.4495/2018
from M/s. Kancharla Constructions Private Limited. At the instance
of EOW, CID P.S., Hyderabad and with the help of Interpol, the trial
court issued NBW for apprehension of the petitioner, his wife and his
daughter. Thereafter, this Court in Crl.P.Nos.1298 and 1190 of 2020
granted stay of all further proceedings including NBW. It is further
submitted that in C.C.No.330 of 2020, it was recorded that the
petitioner and his family members were absconding. It is further
submitted that no summons were issued and later LOC was opened.
Thereafter, the petitioner, his wife and his daughter filed
6
W.P.No.10887/2020 questioning the notice issued by National Central
Bureau (Interpol), New Delhi in relation to Crime No.172 of 2018 on
the file of PS Chengomol and C.C.No.330 of 2020 on the file of learned
II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy
District. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.14819 of 2023 before this
Court to renew his passport and on the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.14819 of 2023, the passport of the petitioner was renewed for
a period of one year and the LOC was in existence through.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed various petitions before this Court for
quashing criminal cases pending against him and his family
members. This Court in W.P.No.23200 of 2024 vide interim orders
dated 30.08.2024 and 30.09.2024 suspended the LOC in C.C.No.330
of 2020 and the petitioner came to India on 30.09.2024.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the trial court and filed re-
call of NBW and NBW was recalled on 15.10.2024. It is further
submitted that this Court disposed of W.P.No.23200 of 2024 in terms
of the interim orders dated 30.08.2024 and 30.09.2024, whereby the
LOC stood suspended, as and when the trial Court in C.C.No.330 of
2020 gives permission to travel to the petitioner. It is further
submitted that when the petitioner landed in India on 30.09.2024, the
petitioner came to know that there was an LOC opened by respondent
No.3 in connection with ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.3 issued summons to the petitioner
on 30.09.2024 to appear on the same day at 12:30 P.M. Thereafter,
7
the petitioner appeared on 01.10.2024 and submitted certain
documents on 03.10.2024. On 08.10.2024, the petitioner appeared
personally before respondent No.3 and filed 59 documents in both
physical and soft copies. Thereafter, again appeared before
respondent No.3 on 17.10.2024 and was asked to come again on
21.10.2024. The petitioner again approached respondent No.3 on
02.12.2024 and submitted several documents and the petitioner was
informed by respondent No.3 that he has to wait for further
instructions or further summons would be issued for the next date of
hearing. However, no summons were issued till date. Thereafter,
the petitioner requested respondent No.3 by way of a letter dated
04.02.2024, which was received by respondent No.3 on 06.02.2024,
requesting permission to travel to Saudi Arabia to attend to his job.
However, no response was received thereafter.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was informed by his
employer that the petitioner is likely to lose his job, if he does not
return on or before 23.03.2025 and in the event of failure to attend,
the petitioner would lose his lifetime benefits accrued for the last 40
years of service. It is further submitted that the petitioner would
return to India on 27.05.2025 to appear before the trial court in
connection with C.C.No.330 of 2020 and accordingly booked his
tickets to come to India to attend C.C.No.330 of 2020 on 30.05.2025.
It is further submitted that the protection given by this Court in
respect of LOC opened in connection with C.C.No.330 of 2020 is still
8
in force and that issuance of LOC by respondent No.3 is hindering the
petitioner in travelling and attending his employment in Riyadh.
Questioning the LOC issued by respondent No.3 in connection with
ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement representing
respondent No.3 filed counter stating that respondent No.3 is an
investigating agency functioning under the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, and is empowered to investigate into the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short “PMLA”), 2002 and the
Foreign Exchange Management Act (for short “FEMA”), 1999 and that
the Directorate of Enforcement is the only competent authority to
investigate into the matter under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and
FEMA, 1999.
It is submitted that various F.I.R.s have been registered against
the petitioner, his son and his company. The registered F.I.R.s are
extracted as under:
Sl.No. F.I.R. No. Date of F.I.R. Police Station
1. 06/2018 30.01.2018 Chengomol PS, Vikarabad
District
2. 55/2018 07.07.2018
3. 80/2018 10.08.2018
4. 173/2018 18.12.2018
9
5. 246/2018 17.08.2018 Narayanaguda PS, Hyderabad
City
6. 249/2018 20.08.2018
7. 250/2018 20.08.2018
8. 251/2018 20.08.2018
4. It is further submitted that the said F.I.R.s against the
petitioner and his company were filed by various investors /
purchasers, who invested / purchased various plots from the
petitioner and his company during 2010-2013 in a venture by name
Hi-Grove County. It is alleged by the investors / purchasers that their
plot along with other lands have been handed over for development to
a third party developer by name M/s. Kancharla Constructions Private
Limited (for short “KCPL”) in a project named Gold Residential Gated
Community (GRGC) without their consent / permission and that they
were further denied entry in their plots. It is further submitted that
apart from the above F.I.R.s, another F.I.R.No.135/2017 , dated
24.07.2017 was registered against the petitioner and others for the
offences under Sections 420, 471 read with 34 of IPC on the basis of
complaint filed by one Mr. Habeeb Ali Baghdadi (complainant), the
younger brother of the petitioner. The complainant alleged that the
petitioner approached and requested him to invest in his company by
projecting that it would fetch good yield in future. Accordingly, the
petitioner’s younger brother / complainant invested Rs.20,00,000/-
10
on various dates during 1999 and 2000 in the petitioner’s company.
It is further submitted that initially, the complainant was allotted
2750 equity shares of Rs.100/- in the petitioner’s company with initial
payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs. It is further alleged that the complainant’s
remaining investments were not updated in ROC records of the
petitioner’s company. It is further submitted that the complainant
was residing in Saudi Arabia, due to his employment and his elder
brother (the petitioner herein) used to take care the affairs of the
company. Later, when the complainant returned to India, he found
that the petitioner executed a DAGPA with one Mr. Mirza Firasat Baig
in favor of KCPL, as per which, the Company’s property to an extent of
193 acres was given for development purpose vide document
No.3600/2016, dated 29.04.2016 and the shares of the complainant
were transferred without his knowledge by way of forged / fabricated
documents. Thereafter, a charge sheet has been filed in F.I.R.No.173
of 2018 and the company and its directors including the petitioner
were arrayed as accused under Sections 420, 406, 447, 506 read with
34 of IPC. It is further submitted that Sections 420 and 471 of IPC
invoked in F.I.R.No.173/2018 are scheduled offences under the
provisions of PMLA, 2002 and thereafter enquiries were initiated
under PMLA by the complainant department against the accused
persons and others under ECIR/HYZO/35/2020, dated 07.12.2020.
5. It is further submitted that during the investigation under
PMLA, 2002, it was revealed that during 2010 to 2013, the company
11
sold 27 plots to 26 individuals in a proposed project by name Hi-Grove
County. Later in the year 2016, the company partnered with one
Mirza Firasat Baig, Mohammed Hadi Ali, Khatija Begum, and Abdul
Rahman, etc., and had executed three DAGPAs with KCPL for
development of land admeasuring 193 acres, which also included the
land of the 26 individuals. It is further alleged by some of the
individuals / plot owners that the company had given their land for
development without taking their permission / consent and when they
approached the directors of the company expressing their grievance,
the petitioner’s son refused to give any right over the said plots and
threatened the plot owners with dire consequences. In those
circumstances, 8 plot owners filed various complaints with the police
against the company for trespass, cheating, misappropriation,
criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation for collecting money
under the guise of selling plots and subsequently entering into the
DAGPA with the developers, which includes the plots belonging to the
complainants / victims without their consent. During the
investigation under PMLA, 2002, summons were issued to the
petitioner on 15.02.2021 to appear before respondent No.3
Department for deposition of statement and furnishing of certain
documents. However, the petitioner furnished only part information.
Thereafter, multiple summons were issued to the petitioner under
Section 50 of PMLA. However, every time, the petitioner sought
adjournment citing his ill-health and claimed that he was living
12
abroad. Thereafter, on 15.05.2023, an LOC was issued against him.
Subsequently, an intimation of the petitioner’s arrival at Rajiv Gandhi
International Airport (for short “RGIA”), Hyderabad on 30.09.2024 was
communicated to respondent No.3 Department by Bureau of
Immigration. It is further submitted that if the LOC was not issued
against the petitioner, the respondent No.3 Department would not
have known about his arrival and that the petitioner was very well
aware of the investigation pending against him and if the petitioner is
a law abiding citizen, he could have informed the Department about
his plan of coming to India. However, the petitioner did not do so, but
for the pending LOC, the petitioner would have come and gone
without the knowledge of the Department, thereby impeding the
investigation.
6. It is further submitted that after receipt of the information
about the petitioner’s arrival, summons were issued to him and his
statements were recorded on 01.10.2024 and 03.10.2024. While
recording the petitioner’s statement, the petitioner was asked to
produce the documents regarding the details of 27 plots sold and their
current status. However, the petitioner sought time and later
furnished details, whereby the petitioner informed that sale deeds
pertaining to 6 plots were subsequently cancelled and investors / plot
owner’s money were returned to the respective parties. Further,
during the petitioner’s statement on 03.10.2024, the petitioner was
asked about security deposits received from KCPL for execution of
13
DAGPA for the said 193 acres of land along with payment details for
the acquisition of the said lands. In response, the petitioner
submitted the details of security deposit of Rs.2.06 crores received
from the developer i.e. KCPL, and details of various purchase deeds
executed from 2008 to 2016 for the purchase of immovable properties,
but failed to produce the source of acquisition thereon. Further, on
investigation, it was revealed that some purchase deeds viz.,
270/2008, 261/2008 and 262/2008 were executed in favor of various
persons by name Mohammed Hadi Ali, Miss Huda Hadi Ali and Mrs.
Khatija Begum (all related to petitioner) by M/s. Greenscape Mega
Resorts Private Limited and the company. Further, the petitioner had
not furnished the source of acquisition of land, which was assigned to
developer i.e. KCPL through DAGPA. The petitioner also sought time
to provide acquisition as well as source details. It is further submitted
that petitioner vide letters dated 07.10.2024 and 02.12.2024,
submitted the copies of sale deeds of all the 27 plots entered into by
his company with the buyers as well as copies of the cancellation
deeds with respect to 6 plots as mentioned and further stated that 7
acres of land was kept aside for the remaining plot owners. However,
the details of payment made by the petitioner for the acquisition of the
said lands along with its source thereof were not submitted and they
are still pending for submission.
14
SUBMISSIONS:
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit the impugned LOC is arbitrary, illegal and without any
basis for the reason i.e. the basis of issuing summons under PMLA,
2002 by ED is on the complaint made by the complainant claiming to
have invested Rs.20.00 lakhs in the company on various dates during
the years 1999 and 2000 and would submit that the complainant has
never invested Rs.20.00 lakhs in the company. Learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the complainant sold shares in the year
2009 and the same were transferred to petitioner’s son, as per
procedure. It is further submitted that the complainant filed a
petition in NCLT, Hyderabad Bench in C.P.No.222/59/HDB/2020 and
the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.10.2022. Further,
this Court in Crl.P.No.338 of 2020 by an order dated 20.09.2023
quashed F.I.R.No.135/2017, dated 24.07.2017 filed by the
complainant against the petitioner and others. Further, the
complainant filed O.S.No.613 of 2017 on the file of learned XX Junior
Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Rangareddy District and the learned XX
Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Rangareddy District by an order
dated 27.12.2017 in I.A.No.808 of 2017 in the said O.S.613 of 2017,
the plaint was ordered to be returned and the same was never
represented by the complainant. Further, the complainant executed
settlement deed in favor of KCPL and collected cheque for Rs.9.50
Crore and at the behest of the developer, the complainant admitted in
15
a voice note of WhatsApp that on instigation of one K.Santosh Reddy,
who was the father of the developer, the complainant filed
CP.No.222/HDB/2020 before respondent No.3 – Directorate of
Enforcement. Thereafter, the copies of the settlement deed, cheque
and WhatsApp voice notes were submitted to respondent No.3 by the
petitioner. As such, the respondent No.3 is privy to that information
and there is no basis for the institution of ECIR dated 07.12.2020.
Further, the allegation with respect of sale of 27 plots to 26
individuals in a Hi-Grove County proposed project, the allegation
stands disproved since the land of 7 acres was excluded from the
development agreement dated 29.04.2016 and this Court by order
dated 05.09.2023 quashed / partially quashed some of the F.I.R.s.
Hence, the Enforcement Directorate lacks jurisdiction for taking
action under PMLA, as the facts neither reveal laundering of money as
defined under Section 2(p) nor the petitioner is in possession of any
proceeds of crime as such ordinary criminal law ought to have been
set in motion. It is further submitted that the petitioner responded to
summons issued on 15.02.2021 and on 22.03.2021, submitted all the
documents mentioned in the annexure to the summons. Thereafter in
July / August, 2023, summons were issued vide e-mail asking the
petitioner to appear. However, the petitioner responded saying that
because of his health condition, he could not appear. The petitioner
submitted sale deeds, bank accounts numbering to 75 documents.
The petitioner’s statements were recorded by respondent No.3
16
Department twice till date, which would indicate that the petitioner is
fully co-operating with the Enforcement Directorate in the ongoing
investigation.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner was directed by his employer to return by
24.03.2025, failing which his services would be terminated and his
entire benefits for the 40 years of service would be forfeited. However,
the petitioner was extended till 23.04.2025 and now the petitioner
purchased a return ticket on 27.05.2025, as he is required to appear
before the trial court in connection with C.C.No.330 of 2020 on
30.05.2025 and the protection given by this Court in W.P.No.23200 of
2024 in respect of the LOC opened in connection with C.C.No.330 of
2020 is in operation. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
the petitioner has already furnished the particulars relating to bank
accounts / deposits belonging to him as well as his company and the
details of NRE & NRO accounts were also placed in the list of dates
and contentions. Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention of
this Court to the details of term deposits maintained in SBI, Main
Branch and King Koti Agri Business Branch, equity funds accounts
with Folio numbers, term deposits of HSBC and Life Insurance
policies and also further draws attention to all company bank account
details held by the petitioner.
17
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner
purchased the lands in the years 1998, 1999, 2007, 2008 and 2010.
The petitioner has given statements available with him relating to the
payments made through his bank accounts and further submits that
since banks do not retain account statements beyond the period of ten
(10) years, the petitioner is not in a position to produce the same and
it is well within the power of respondent No.3 Department under the
provision of PMLA to summon the same from the concerned banks, if
required for investigation.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner has furnished all the required information and is ready
to co-operate with the investigation and pray this Court to grant
appropriate reliefs including setting aside the impugned LOC issued
by the respondent No.3 in connection with ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020.
11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3
submits that the case registered against the petitioner under the
provisions of PMLA, 2002 has been pending since 2020 due to non-
appearance and non-cooperation from the side of the petitioner. As
such, the respondent No.3 Department was constrained to issue LOC
to ensure the presence of the petitioner as and when he arrives India
and would further submit that if the LOC was not issued against the
petitioner, the respondent No.3 Department would never have known
about the petitioner’s arrival to India. Learned Standing Counsel
18
would further submit that the petitioner was very well aware of the
investigation pending against him and if the petitioner is a law abiding
citizen, he ought to have intimated the Department about his plan of
coming to India.
12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would
further submit that during investigation, the petitioner was
summoned multiple times. However, the petitioner has not complied
with the same and on getting the information about his arrival from
the Immigration Authority, the petitioner was summoned to record his
statement and sought for requisite documents. Learned Standing
Counsel further submits that the petitioner was asked to produce
documents regarding the sale of 27 plots and their current status.
However, the petitioner sought time to produce the requisite
documents in respect of the same. Later, the petitioner furnished
details, whereby the petitioner informed that sale deeds for 6 plots
were cancelled and the payments were returned to the respective
parties. Further on his statement recorded on 03.10.2024, the
petitioner was asked to produce the details of payment made for the
acquisition of the said lands along with its source and documents
thereof, for which, the petitioner again sought time. Thereafter by way
of letters dated 07.10.2024 and 02.12.2024, the petitioner submitted
copies of sale deeds of all 27 plots entered into by his company with
the buyers and copies of cancellation deeds with respect to 6 plots.
However, the petitioner did not submit details of payment made by
19
him for the acquisition of the said lands along with its source and
documents thereof and the requisite details are still pending for
submission. It is further submitted that the investigation of the
petitioner’s case is still under progress and the petitioner may be
directed to submit the pending information / documents and to co-
operate with the investigation proceedings and eventually pray this
Court to dismiss the writ petition and to direct the petitioner to
submit pending information and to fully co-operate with the
investigation proceedings.
13. The respondent No.4, who is the impleaded respondent in this
writ petition, would submit that the respondent No.4 is the de facto
complainant in the predicate offence i.e. C.C.No.330 of 2020 on the
file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar,
Rangareddy District giving rise to the proceedings initiated by the
respondent authority invoking provisions of PMLA, 2002 against the
petitioner. The respondent No.4 refers to various documents
including the orders passed by this Court, wherein, the petitioner
even on grant of concession to appear and participate with the due
process of law but disobeyed on one pretext or other. It is further
submitted that even after expiry of the petitioner’s passport and on
failure of his attempts to get renewal compelling to return to India,
approached this Court seeking for suspension of LOC, whereby this
Court upon consideration of the fact that since almost 6 long years,
the enquiry against the petitioner is pending, suspended the LOC for a
20
limited period issued in the predicate offence permitting the petitioner
to file recall application on their appearance before the trial court and
thereof to travel abroad only in given circumstance of the petitioner
being permitted and in such compelling circumstances, the petitioner
has travelled back to India. It is further submitted that the petitioner
approached the trial court in the predicate offence i.e. C.C.No.330 of
2020 on the file of learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,
L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District to permit him to travel abroad. The
said application was pending before the trial court and the same has
not been disclosed by the writ petition. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has chequered history in evading and avoiding the
process of law. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has
serious doubts with regard to petitioner’s bonafides. Eventually, it is
submitted that subsistence of the impugned LOC is necessary for the
appropriate action of reporting the petitioner’s arrival to the Law
Enforcement Agencies, which in turn can execute the orders of the
competent jurisdictional court. It is further submitted that the
petitioner approached this Court with malafide and mischievous
intention seeking suspension of the LOC and that the criminal
proceedings vide C.C.No.330 of 2020 were initiated against the
petitioner at the instance of respondent No.4 and if any relief is
granted to the petitioner, it would cause prejudice to the rights and
interests of respondent No.4 and prayed this Court to dismiss this
writ petition.
21
14. Heard Mr. D.V.Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Mr. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner on record and Mr. V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.3, N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
No.4.
15. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents by
opening LOC against the petitioner in connection with
ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020 disables the petitioner to travel from / to
India. The respondent No.3 has already initiated the proceedings
under PMLA, 2002, which is pending since 2020 and is concerned
with the petitioner source of acquisition. It is to be noted that unless
the petitioner co-operates with respondent No.3 in submitting all the
relevant documents, the respondent No.3 thereby cannot conclude the
investigation pending under the provisions of PMLA, 2002. The
respondent No.3 is directed to specify the petitioner for submission of
required documents pending in the investigation in one go by issuing
the notice specifying the date and time and the petitioner shall submit
the required information / documents as required by respondent No.3
in concluding the investigation.
16. In Showik Indrajit Chakraborty vs. Additional Superintendent of
Police and Another 1, the High Court of Bombay by order dated
22.02.2024 observed that indefinite pendency of LOC is violation of an
1
Crl.W.P.No.3135 of 2023
22
individual’s right to travel abroad under Article 21 of Constitution of
India. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“27. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners have roots in
the society. The right to travel is a fundamental right and
cannot be curtailed except according to due procedure
established by law. Under the format for issuance of LOC
itself, “reasons” must be given. Even under the said
Consolidated Guidelines, the LOC is expected to be
periodically reviewed, as to whether ground exists to
continue the same. No reason has been mentioned in the
LOCs, as to why issuance of LOCs was warranted, except for
mentioning the FIR and giving the gist of the FIR. Nor is there
anything to show that the LOC issued has been reviewed
after 2020. It is pertinent to note that it not a case of the
respondent CBI that the petitioners, except Rhea is a flight
risk. All the petitioners have roots in India. All the petitioners
including petitioner Rhea have cooperated with the
investigation. The only submission is that investigation is
ongoing and that permission can be sought as and when the
petitioners intend to travel abroad, for suspension of the LOC,
during the said period. This submission, we are afraid,
cannot be accepted or acceded to, and as such we reject the
same. The LOC cannot be kept pending indefinitely, in this
case for more than 3 1/2 years, though the petitioners have
cooperated with the investigation, which fact has not been
disputed. As noted earlier, there is already a condition
imposed on the petitioners Showik and Rhea, in an NDPS
case, not to leave the country, without the permission of the
Court.”
17. In Maria Ramesh vs. Union of India and another 2, the High Court
of Delhi by order dated 27.01.2026 observed that mere pendency of
investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the
operation of LOC. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“8. Before turning to the facts of the instant case, at the outset, it is
pertinent to note the legal position as to when the Court shall exercise
its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the
LOCs.
9. This Court in Vikram Sharma v. Union of India and Sumer
Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director has elucidated the legal framework
governing the issuance of LOC. In Sumer Singh Salkan, the Court
2
W.P..(C).No.15701 of 2022 and batch
23held that recourse to issuance of LOC where the accused was
deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite
non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures, and there was a
likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. The
Court, while answering the reference, held as under:-
“11. Look-out-Circular has also been issued against the
petitioner as the petitioner is an accused the Court of M.M. and
he has not appeared the Court of M.M. If the petitioner gives an
undertaking the court for his appearance on a particular date,
through his counsel, the Look-out-Circular issued against the
petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours of giving
undertaking by the petitioner.
The questions raised in the reference are as under:
A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating
agency can seek recourse of Look-out-Circular and under what
circumstances?
B. What procedure is required to be followed by the
investigating agency opening a Look-out-circular?
C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom
such Look- out-Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is
brought it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts
can intervene?
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the
accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the
trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there
was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade
trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for
LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of
Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The
competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by
passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join
investigation by appearing I.O. or should surrender the court
concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly
issued against him. He may also approach the officer who
ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly
issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that
issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is
pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on
an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the
investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’
jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate
24with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming
NBWs.”
10. In Puja Chadha v. Directorate of Enforcement. the Court,
while relying on the decisions in the cases of Prashant Bothra v.
Bureau of Immigration, Dhruv Tewari v. Directorate of
Enforcement, Sumer Singh Salkan, Brij Bhushan Kathuria v.
Union of India and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva v. Union of India, held
that the power to issue an LOC is an extraordinary and coercive
measure which has a direct bearing on an individual’s right to travel,
and therefore must be exercised strictly in accordance with law.
11. Recently, this Court in the case of Sandeep Dhanuka v.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, has also dealt with various
aspects of the issuance of LOC and has held as under: –
“14…….An LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising
the right to travel of an individual. The settled legal
position, as per the judgment in Sumer Singh Salkan
(supra) is that unless and until there is an FIR which is
lodged or a criminal case which is pending, an LOC
cannot be issued.
xxx xxx xxx
18. It is clear from a perusal of clauses (g), (h) and (j) that
unless and until the conditions in these clauses are
satisfied, prima-facie an LOC cannot be opened.
xxx
44. Similarly in Ashutosh Sharma v. Union of India,
W.P.(C)7769 of 2022, the Court has observed as under:-
12. The above makes it clear that only in exceptional cases
can a LOC be issued without fulfilling the parameters. This
is because a person’s right to travel freely is an expression
of their fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, such a
right can only be restricted under strict parameters and in
accordance with the procedure established by law.”
45. Reference is also apposite to Hulas Rahul Gupta v.
Bureau of Immigration (supra), wherein the Court has
observed as under –
18. The abovementioned guidelines show that the ordinary
recourse to open LOCs is to be taken in cognizable offence
under IPC and other penal laws. However, in exceptional
circumstances, LOCs can be opened in such cases which
are not covered by the guidelines if it is felt that the person
concerned if leaves the country would be against the
economic interest of the country.
25
19. It is now a settled law that opening of an LOC has a
very serious effect on a person’s fundamental right to travel
abroad which is on the face of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the said right to travel cannot be
curtailed without following due process. It is also settled
law that recourse to LOC can be taken by the Investigating
Agencies primarily when there is a cognizable offence
under IPC or in any other penal laws or where the accused
is deliberately evading the arrest and not appearing before
Court despite summons being served on him or issuance of
non-bailable warrants or when other coercive measures
have been taken by the Court to ensure his appearance in
the Court and that there is likelihood of the accused to
leave the country to evade such trial or arrest.
20. The LOCs are also being issued at the instance of
Investigating Agencies where apprehension is raised by the
Investigating Agencies that the person who is alleged of
committing an offence might escape the clutches of law by
leaving the country. However, the law is also getting
crystallized that merely because there are some revenue
implications, the LOC cannot be opened against a person.
A Single Bench of this Court in Priya Parameswaran Pillai
v. Union of India, [2015 VII AD (Delhi) 10] has held that
merely because there were some revenue implications due
to notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the
violations of tax laws are not demonstrative of the fact that
the Petitioner therein had acted inimical to the economic
interests of the country.
12. It is pertinent to note the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar
Mehta v. Union of India. The relevant extract of the aforenoted
decision reads as under::
26. Lookout Circular is a major impediment for a person
who wants to travel abroad. There is plethora of
judgments which states that no person can be deprived of
his right to go abroad other than for very compelling
reasons. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1
SCC 248, the Apex Court has held as under:–
“5. …Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to
go abroad unless there is a law made by the State
prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the
deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such
procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with
the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the
Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad.
It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967
that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport
26may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and
also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question
is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is
the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must
the procedure comply with any particular requirements?
Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned
Attorney-General who with his usual candour frankly
stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any
procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may
be prescribed by the law….”
13. In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India 3 this Court held as under: –
21. It is well settled that merely because the Office
Memorandum permits the issuance of a lookout circular
in exceptional circumstances, even when an individual is
not involved in any offence under the IPC or any other
penal law, the said power should be used in exceptional
circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
14. Recently, this Court, in Anant Raj Kanoria v. Union Of India &
Ors, upon an exhaustive consideration of the earlier precedents, held
that the mechanical continuation of a LOC, in the absence of any
necessity for the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, renders
such restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly where the petitioner
has neither evaded the process of law nor exhibited any intent to
obstruct the investigation. The Court further observed that repeated
invocation of the writ jurisdiction for interim reliefs in such matters
places an avoidable burden on judicial time, which could otherwise be
devoted to cases involving substantive rights and pressing questions of
law.”
18. In that view of the matter, referring to the aforesaid judgments and
judicial precedents and having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The respondent No.3 shall conclude the investigation in
ECIR/HYDZO/35/2020 and take further course of action
as expeditiously as possible in continuing the LOC.
3
W.P.(C) 10951/2022
27
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit his original passport before the
II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,
Hyderabad, in C.C. No.330 of 2020.
(iii) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking along with an
affidavit before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in C.C. No.330 of 2020, stating that
the petitioner will not leave India during pendency of the
said C.C. without permission of the Court and will
cooperate with the Trial Court in concluding the criminal
proceedings.
(iv) The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,
Hyderabad, in C.C. No.330 of 2020, shall consider the same
and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
19. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending,
in this petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 10.06.2026
Nsk
