Medical Grounds No Basis For Foreign Travel Of Economic Offender When Treatment Available In India: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Lift Look Out Circular
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the petitioner’s request to travel overseas could not be allowed and upheld the order declining suspension of the Look Out Circular. The Court noted that the matter concerns allegations of diversion of company revenues and withholding of material financial information during an investigation into suspected economic misconduct. Incorporating the Court’s position that an accused cannot rely on medical grounds to seek foreign travel when suitable treatment is available in India, the Bench concluded that the petitioner’s medical plea did not justify relaxation of restrictions. In view of her past non-compliance, continuing flight-risk concerns, and the availability of required medical procedures in India, the petition was dismissed.
The petition concerned a request to set aside an order denying permission to travel abroad. The petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India and resident of the United Kingdom, was stopped from leaving India in August 2022 due to a Look Out Circular issued pursuant to an SFIO investigation ordered in March 2022 into Net4 India Ltd. and related companies over alleged siphoning of about Rs. 208 crores. She had earlier been allowed conditional travel, but the Court later found her non-compliant for not providing complete bank statements, not appointing a competent representative, withholding details of a co-accused relative, and denying knowledge of company affairs. The writ petitions challenging the LOC were dismissed in August 2023.
The investigation recorded that the petitioner held positions in group companies, signed financial documents and the Master Reseller Agreement dated 20.10.2016, and did not disclose interest despite family members being directors in the concerned entities. The respondents contended that she facilitated diversion of funds and withheld bank details during investigation. The petitioner asserted that she had limited roles as a non-executive director, claimed lack of involvement, provided documents to the extent available, and argued medical necessity for travel. Statutory provisions invoked included Sections 177, 188, 189 and 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim of being a non-executive director “is contrary to her own filing of Form PAS-4… describing her as a person of ‘very vast experience in the field of business and allied activities and great industrialist’.” It stated that she is “signatory to MRA by virtue of which the entire business of N4IL was transferred to NNSL for a period of seven years,” and that the signing was “without attaining the requisite compliances required under the Companies Act and in contravention of Sections 177, 188 & 189.”
The Court recorded that even a non-executive director “is also liable to the specific acts and violations committed by them during their tenure in terms of Section 149(12).” It observed that in dismissing earlier petitions, it had been held that her submissions about being unaware of the company’s activities “cannot be accepted at this stage.”
The Court stated that she had “refused to provide the bank account statements… beyond two years,” and that her argument that such statements could not be fetched online was rejected since “most banking now a days is conducted online.” It recorded that the authorised representative “was not having knowledge of the petitioner or her family dealings in order to extend any cooperation to the SFIO.” It also stated that 33 accounts “were concealed,” and details were “unearthed only through investigation and not voluntarily disclosed.”
It observed that the petitioner relied on completion of investigation, but the Court’s earlier orders “unequivocally record that despite repeated directions, the petitioner failed to comply.” It stated that the findings regarding her conduct “continue to govern the assessment of her credibility and the risk of her absconding.”
On medical grounds, the Court recorded that she “has not been able to establish that the requested medical procedure… is unavailable in India” and that “adequate treatment is available domestically.” It stated that she “has nowhere pleaded financial incapacity” and no medical opinion required the procedure to be performed in the UK.
The Court observed that her son, a co-accused, remains abroad and another accused had expired, and that these facts “strengthen the apprehension” that granting travel liberty may result in her non-return. It stated that her prior ability to travel is “irrelevant” since it was her later conduct that triggered adverse findings. It recorded that she had shown no “exceptional circumstance warranting deviation.”
The Court stated: “this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.10.2024. The petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner’s past non-compliance, the availability of requisite medical treatment within India, her status as a foreign national with no roots in this country, and the real and subsisting apprehension that she may not return to face trial”. It stated that since no grounds for interference were made out, the order of the Special Judge would continue to operate.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Maadhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Mr. Sanjivni Paritosh, Ms. Asees Kaur, Ms. Pragya, Ms. Rishika Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms. Archana Surve, GP, Ms. Nupur Grover, SFIO, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Advocates, and Ms. Akanksha Bhadouria, Senior Assistant Director
Case Title: Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India and Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10149
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 214/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
