Karnataka High Court
Mr Sushil P Mantri vs Union Of India on 5 September, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
WP No. 11902 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 11902 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SUSHIL P MANTRI
S/O SRI PANDURANG MANTRI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT: NO.41
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. SNEHAL MANTRI
W/O MR. SUSHIL MANTRI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. PRATIK SUSHIL MANTRI
S/O SUSHIL MANTRI
Digitally signed by B
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
K R/AT NO.18, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
JAI SINGH MARG
HANUMAN ROAD AREA CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
WP No. 11902 of 2024
2. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
5TH FLOOR, A BLOCK
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDIGN
K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CENTRAL
KASTURBA ROAD
BENGALURU.
6. CUBBONPARK POLICSE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KASTURBA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. PRAMOD, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH
SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENT I.E. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CENTRAL AND
CUBBON POLICE STATION TO RECONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-E
DATED 15/02/2024 AND 31/01/2024 PURSUANT TO THE SAME
TO COMMUNICATE WITH R1 AND 2 AND RECALL THE
LOOKOUT CIRCULAR ISSUED IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
ARE CONCERNED IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.
140/2019 REGISTERED BY THE R6 CUBBON PARK POLICE
AND ETC,.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
WP No. 11902 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the 5th and 6th
respondents to recall the Lookout Circular ("LOC") issued against
them, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners.
2. The LOC was issued based on a complaint lodged by
Mr. Satyanatha Chawla, who had invested funds in a project
developed by the petitioners. The petitioners, acting as the
Managing Directors of the company undertaking the project, were
accused of failing to complete the project within the stipulated
timeframe, which led to allegations of breach of trust and
misappropriation.
3. As a result of the complaint, a First Information Report
(FIR) was registered against the petitioners under Crime
No.140/2019. Further, similar complaints were also lodged by other
investors. In light of these complaints, the 5th and 6th respondents,
apprehending that the petitioners might flee or abscond from the
country to evade legal proceedings, issued the LOC against the
petitioners to restrict their travel abroad.
4. Notably, this Court, in its order dated 9.10.2023,
passed in W.P.No.10258/2020 and connected matters, quashed
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
the investigation in Crime No.163/2020 registered by
Subramanyapura Police Station for offenses under Sections 406,
409, 420, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). This order effectively nullified the investigation into the
alleged criminal activities.
5. The petitioners have also filed multiple criminal
petitions before this Court challenging other similar complaints, and
the Court has stayed all further proceedings in those cases,
following the registration of the crimes impugned therein. Thus, the
investigations in all matters related to the petitioners are presently
stayed by this Court.
6. The matter was heard by this Court, with arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as
submissions made by Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, representing Respondents No.1 and 2,
and Sri Pramod, Additional Advocate General, along with
Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader,
representing Respondents No.3 to 6.
7. The issue concerning the recall or cancellation of an
LOC and the circumstances under which an accused subject to an
LOC may travel abroad has been comprehensively examined by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12185/2022, which was
disposed of on 24.08.2022. In that judgment, the Court laid down
specific guidelines regarding the issuance and deletion of LOCs. It
was held that, if an LOC is challenged and subsequently stayed by
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
the Court, or if the Court issues any directive regarding the LOC,
the originator of the LOC is required to inform the Bureau of
Immigration accordingly, and to seek deletion of the LOC.
8. In the present case, given that all criminal proceedings
against the petitioners have been stayed by this Court, the very
purpose of the LOC issued against them no longer exists. The LOC
was initially issued to secure the presence of the petitioners, based
on the apprehension that they might abscond or flee from the
country. However, with the proceedings being stayed, the
petitioners are no longer required for investigation or trial at this
stage. Therefore, the issuance of the LOC has served its purpose,
and the petitioners are now entitled to have the impugned LOC
recalled.
9. In light of the above, the respondents take necessary
steps to recall the LOC issued against the petitioners and to inform
the Bureau of Immigration of the same, ensuring that the
petitioners' liberty to travel is restored.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The respondents No.5 and 6 are hereby directed to
recall the LOC and to keep it in abeyance .
NC: 2024:KHC:36448
iii) Respondents No.5 and 6 are directed not to enforce
the LOC issued against the petitioners, subject to the
outcome of the pending petitions before this Court.
iv) Respondents No.5 and 6 shall inform Respondents
No.1 and 2 regarding the decision to keep the LOC issued
against the petitioners in abeyance.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HR
