Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Look Out Circular Issued Against Seychelles Citizen Investigated In ₹500 Cr. Scam
The Madras High Court has refused to quash a Look Out Circular issued against a Seychelles Citizen being investigated in a ₹500 Crore scam, stating that he would be a flight risk since the country lacks an extradition treaty with India.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Authorities to withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against him.
The Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed, “……(i) The petitioner is a citizen of Seychelles, which lacks an extradition treaty with India. (ii) The counter-affidavit filed expresses a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would be a flight risk if permitted to travel without any conditions. (iii) The case involves an investigation into a serious offense involving hundreds of crores of rupees and has significant implications for the country’s banking system……In light of this, the first respondent is right in continuing the Lookout Circular against the petitioner.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate A.Ashwin Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate K. Srinivasan.
Facts of the Case
The case of the Petitioner was that he was one of the Directors of a company, namely M/s. Broadcourt Investments Limited, which was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The Petitioner, along with one other, served as Directors during the relevant period. While so, one M/s. Axcel Sunshine Limited (A-1) borrowed a significant amount of more than ₹500 Crores and allegedly siphoned it off inter alia to the said M/s. Broadcourt Investments Limited, where the Petitioner was also a director. In this regard, an investigation is ongoing; after it was completed, a final report was filed, and subsequently, when the Petitioner returned to India, a Lookout Circular was issued against him, although he is not named as an accused.
It was his contention that despite not being an accused, he has been detained in India to date and the Lookout Circular remains pending against him unnecessarily. It was further contended that he duly participated in the inquiry and has not violated any law in any manner whatsoever. The Counsel averred that the Petitioner had complied with the condition and had travelled abroad three times previously and returned as well, and even after that, the Circular remains pending against him. It was contended that the Petitioner has the right to travel abroad, despite being a foreign national; and that right cannot be curtailed. It was further contended that the Look Out Circular has remained pending for years now, and the same impinges upon the Petitioner’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was thus argued that the Petitioner cannot be kept waiting indefinitely when absolutely no progress has been made in the investigation and when he has made every effort to cooperate.
Reasoning By Court
The Court, at the outset, noted that the normal principle is that once the Accused is brought to book and is facing the law enforcement agency and attending Court, the Lookout Circular thereafter need not be continued. However, pointing at the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court allowed the Authorities to continue the Lookout Circular against the Petitioner.
It though also noted that the time lag must also be considered and the investigation cannot remain indefinitely pending, and it shall not extend beyond a reasonable period, so as to infringe upon the petitioner’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Given the complexity of the matter and the explanation provided by the First Respondent that a prior loan transaction involving one company was investigated, which led to further inquiries with multiple accused persons, the continuation of the investigation thus far can be justified……Therefore, the petitioner cannot be required to stay in India indefinitely without even being named as an accused in the criminal case. As the petitioner is a foreign national, the appropriate rules will apply once they are named as an accused. However, the investigation should be completed within a reasonable timeframe……Upon completion, if no case is established against the petitioner, the first respondent shall revoke the Lookout Circular. If any offence is made out and the petitioner is added as an accused, he must face the trial during which there would be justification to keep the circular pending. If the investigation is not completed within one year from today, the petitioner may approach this Court with the same request to quash the Lookout Circular. It is the responsibility of the authorities to prioritize and complete the investigation, as this matter has been pending for quite some time,” the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly disposed of with conditions imposed on the travel of the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Karthik Parthiban vs. The Superintendent of Police (2025:MHC:1292)
Appearances:
Petitioner– Advocate A.Ashwin Kumar
Respondent– Senior Advocate K. Srinivasan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel C.V.Shyam Sunder
