Delhi High Court
Sucheta Omprakash Goenka vs Serious Fraud Investigation ... on 1 June, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 1st June, 2022
+ W.P.(CRL) 612/2022, CRL.M.A. 9192/2022
SUCHETA OMPRAKASH GOENKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Ranjeeta
Rohatgi, Ms. Shweta Singh, Ms.
Samten Doma, Mr. Anurag Andely,
Ms. Trisita Parashar & Mr. Deep
Narayan Sarkar, Advocates.
versus
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE THROUGH THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, GP with
Mr. Arib Ansari, Company
Prosecutor (SFIO), Mr. Tarun
Srivastava & Mr. Sandeep Kumar,
Law Consultants (SFIO).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
CRL.M.A. 5243/2022
1. This order will dispose of the application [CRL.M.A. 5243/2022],
whereby the applicant/petitioner seeks permission to travel to Dubai.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari and
mandamus directing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Delhi
not to restrict or impede the foreign travels of the applicant by issuing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:01.06.2022
12:59:26
various directions in CR No.14/2018, registered by Economic Crime
Branch under Sections 409/420/120B IPC. It is the case of the applicant
that due to lookout notices issued by the SFIO, Delhi in respect of the said
crime No.14/2018, she was unable to travel freely to Dubai, despite the
permission granted to her by the High Court of Bombay.
3. Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned senior counsel for the applicant,
submitted that in respect of the lookout notice issued by the Economic
Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai, the Bombay High Court had, pending
disposal of the writ petition, granted bail to the applicant and permission to
travel to Dubai. However, when she tried to leave the country pursuant to
this permission granted by the Bombay High Court, she was detained as
the SFIO Delhi office had also issued a lookout notice. In the
circumstances, the petition has been moved.
4. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
permission to go to Dubai for a period of 8 weeks. Learned senior counsel
for the applicant submitted that she being in her early 40‟s was seeking to
settle into matrimony, for which purpose, she wished to go to Dubai. It is
his case that the proposals had to be negotiated, so that she could marry at
the earliest, but on account of her absence from Dubai, nothing had
fructified. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as this involved
humanitarian consideration, the request should be viewed compassionately
by the court and permission granted.
5. In opposition Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/SFIO submitted that the applicant was a high flight risk.
She was the principal beneficiary of the diversion of funds by her father
and she was not cooperating with the investigations.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:01.06.2022
12:59:26
6. To this, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the
companies under investigations were Twinkle Enviro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
(„TETPL‟), Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. („RTSCPL‟) and Citrus
Check-Inns Ltd. („CCIL‟) in which she has absolutely no role as she was
not even a Director. It was submitted that though since 2018, the applicant
has been in Mumbai, she was called for investigations only in 2021, when
she fully participated in them. As regards the details of bank accounts
located in Dubai which were in her name, namely, (i) Mashreq Bank,
Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, (ii) National Bank of Fajairah, Bank Street,
Dubai, (iii) National Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK Bank), Makhtoum
Street Branch, Dubai, (iv) National Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK Bank),
Makhtoum Street Branch, Dubai & (v) HSBC (UAE), Ibn Batuta Branch,
Dubai, since she had lost her Residence Status in Dubai, the banks were
not willing to disclose the details online and, therefore, if she was
permitted to go to Dubai, she would also be able to furnish all details, after
collecting the same personally.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that
the three companies, namely, TETPL and CCIL had collected a sum of
Rs.12318 Crores from the public in the guise of "Holiday Plan Schemes"
and "Time-Share Holidays" from investors during the period between 2000
and 2015 and only a sum of Rs. 6737 Crores were returned to these
investors. Investigations had revealed that the money had been transferred
through RTSCPL and 86 other subsidiary companies, collectively referred
to as Companies under Investigations („CUIs‟) in which the applicant was
a Director. She was discharging key functions including finalization of the
financial accounts of the company. She had received funds from her father
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:01.06.2022
12:59:26
Sh. Om Prakash Goenka through unsecured loans and investigations were
held up for want of year-wise loan taken by the applicant and her family
and 86 CUIs with details of interest paid thereon. During questioning, she
had claimed that she had only one bank account in "RAK", whereas, her
father revealed that the applicant has five accounts in Dubai. Since the
applicant was deeply involved in all transactions and the investigations
were continuing and would require further time and her presence would be
necessary to confront her, she should not be allowed to leave the country.
8. I have heard both the learned counsel. The question whether the
lookout notice should be quashed or not and whether the applicant would
be entitled to the relief, as claimed in her petition, are yet to be decided.
Since by way of the present application, the applicant seeks to go to Dubai
for very personal reasons, the application is allowed, permitting the
applicant to travel to Dubai for a period of 8 weeks between 1st July, 2022
to 26 August, 2022, subject to the following conditions :
(i) The applicant shall furnish the details of the place of her
residence in Dubai and her contact number during her stay in
Dubai to the Investigating Officer;
(ii) The application being specific i.e. the permission to travel to
Dubai, it is directed that the applicant shall not go to any other
country or city other than Dubai during this time.
(iii) The applicant shall make no effort to dispose of assets that
belong to her or the CIUs during her stay in Dubai.
(iv) The applicant shall not have any transactions in the banks,
namely, (i) Mashreq Bank, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, (ii)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:01.06.2022
12:59:26
National Bank of Fajairah, Bank Street, Dubai, (iii) National
Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK Bank), Makhtoum Street
Branch, Dubai, (iv) National Bank of Ras Al Khalmah (RAK
Bank) & (v) HSBC (UAE), Ibn Batuta Branch, Dubai and will
be bound by the assurance given, to obtain the details of the
said bank accounts as required by the respondent No.1 to
submit the same either immediately through email or on her
return to India, as required by the SFIO.
(v) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond and a surety bond
in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue, Delhi.
(vi) The applicant shall also deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the
form of FDR in the name of the Registrar General of this
Court which may, on application be returned to the applicant
on her return to India.
9. With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 612/2022, CRL.M.A. 9192/2022
10. List on 6th December, 2022.
11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(ASHA MENON)
JUDGE
JUNE 01, 2022
ck
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:01.06.2022
12:59:26
