Allowed

Mr Sushil P Mantri v. Union of India

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/11902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought recall of a Lookout Circular issued on complaints of breach of trust and misappropriation in a real estate project. Since investigations in connected crimes stood stayed by this Court, the court held the LOC had served its purpose and directed its recall and non-enforcement, with intimation to the Bureau of Immigration.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 and 6 directed to recall the LOC and keep it in abeyance, not to enforce it subject to pending petitions, and to inform respondents 1 and 2.

Mr Sushil P Mantri Vs Union of India — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11902 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SUSHIL P MANTRI S/O SRI PANDURANG MANTRI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT: NO.41 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶8

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.

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

PRATIK SUSHIL MANTRI S/O SUSHIL MANTRI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.18, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17 RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶16

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 5^TH FLOOR, A BLOCK TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDIGN K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CENTRAL KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU.

¶20

CUBBONPARK POLICSE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PRAMOD, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R3 TO R6)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING 5^TH AND 6^TH 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,.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 5^th and 6^th respondents to recall the Lookout Circular (“LOC”) issued against them, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Notably, this Court, in its order dated 9.10.2023, passed in W.P.No.10258/2020 and connected matters, quashed

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

10. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶46

ii) The respondents No.5 and 6 are hereby directed to recall the LOC and to keep it in abeyance .

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:36448 WP No. 11902 of 2024

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶52

Mr Sushil P Mantri v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sushil P Mantri v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Jayasree Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.H.Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri.Prakashchand

Sri M P Krishne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vijaylakshmi @ Viji Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lpg Cng Retrofitters Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mailvaganan Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.