Persons Facing LOC Must First Approach Trial Court For Temporary Suspension To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that applications seeking temporary suspension of Look out Circular (LOC) for foreign travel should, in the first instance, be moved before the competent Special Court seized of the prosecution complaint.Justice Madhu Jain however clarified that the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the challenge to the LOCs raised in the writ petitions, which shall...
The Delhi High Court has observed that applications seeking temporary suspension of Look out Circular (LOC) for foreign travel should, in the first instance, be moved before the competent Special Court seized of the prosecution complaint.
Justice Madhu Jain however clarified that the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the challenge to the LOCs raised in the writ petitions, which shall be considered independently at the appropriate stage.
The Court reasoned that a prayer for temporary suspension of an LOC for foreign travel entails an assessment of the purpose and duration of the proposed travel, the stage of the criminal proceedings, likelihood of the applicant being available to join the investigation as and when required, and the safeguards required to secure his presence.
It added that the said considerations are intrinsically connected with the pending criminal proceedings and are matters on which the Court seized of the prosecution complaint would be better placed to undertake an effective and informed assessment.
“Such Court would have the benefit of the record of the proceedings before it and would be in a position to impose such conditions as may be considered necessary while balancing the applicant's right to travel against the requirements of the criminal proceedings,” the Court said.
Justice Jain was dealing with pleas filed by Sanjay Dangi and Amit Dangi, who sought quashing of LOCs allegedly opened at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an ECIR registered last year.
Pending the writ petitions, they had also sought suspension of the LOCs to enable them to travel abroad for business purposes.
Neither of them had been arrayed as an accused in the predicate FIRs or in the prosecution complaint filed by the ED. While Sanjay Dangi had not been cited as a witness, Amit Dangi was cited as a prosecution witness.
The question that was adjudicated was whether the prayer for temporary suspension of LOCs and permission to travel abroad ought to be considered by the High Court in the first instance, or by the competent Court which is already seized of the prosecution complaint of ED.
Referring to the Supreme Court-approved LOC framework as considered in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director, the Court noted that an LOC may be rescinded by the trial court where the case is pending, or by the court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, on an application by the “person concerned”.
The Court said that the expression “person concerned” refers to the person against whom the LOC operates and does not make his arraignment as an accused a condition for maintaining such an application.
“Thus, although neither petitioner has been named as an accused and petitioner Amit Dangi has been cited as a prosecution witness, that circumstance does not preclude the learned Special Court from considering their limited prayers for temporary permission to travel. Their status as non-accused persons shall, however, remain material to their challenge to the issuance and continued operation of the LOCs, which shall be considered independently in the writ petitions,” the Court said.
“Accordingly, insofar as the present applications are concerned wherein the petitioners are seeking temporary suspension of the LOCs solely for the purpose of travelling abroad, this Court is of the view that the applicants ought, in the first instance, to approach the competent Court at Delhi seized of the prosecution complaint. This, however, shall have no bearing on the merits of the challenge to the LOCs raised in the writ petitions, which shall be considered independently at the appropriate stage,” it added.
The Court said that if the applications are filed, the concerned Special Court shall consider them and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible, on their own merits and in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the other side.
It added that pendency of the writ petitions shall not in any way influence the concerned special court in deciding the applications, if filed by the petitioners.
Title: SANJAY DANGI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS & Other Connected Matter