While quashing a Look Out Circular issued against a woman in a cheating case, the Delhi High Court has held that mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of LOC.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her.

The Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held, “In these circumstances, the continued operation of the LOC operates as a restraint on the petitioner’s personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The absence of any supervening circumstance warranting restraint on the petitioner’s right to travel for the purposes of investigation renders the continuation of the LOC unnecessary. Mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged operation of LOC.”

Senior Advocate Ashish Dholakia represented the Petitioner, while SPC Sunandha Shukla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, under Sections 406,420,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner and other co-accused. The FIR arose out of the disputes pertaining to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed in 2013 between the complainant and his associates, and the petitioner’s husband, in relation to investment in a real estate project titled “USHERA.” While an investment of ₹35 crores was allegedly contemplated, only ₹22.5 crores was made, which led to disputes between the parties. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and was granted the same by the Additional Sessions Judge. The ASJ recorded that no illegality or siphoning of funds was apparent and further noted that the project “Ushera” was substantially complete to the extent of 50–70%.

As stated by the petitioner, she became aware of the existence of the LOC only when she was informed by the Investigating Officer, which prevented her from travelling abroad, including to Australia in connection with her granddaughter’s medical condition. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was neither furnished with the grounds nor the particulars on the basis of which the LOC was issued, and the same could not be obtained even under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Referring to the Status Report filed by the respondent which recorded that the petitioner did not have any major role in the investigation, the petitioner claimed that the continuance of the LOC was wholly unjustified.

Reasoning

Dealing with the aspect of Court’s discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the LOCs, the Bench referred to the judgment in Anant Raj Kanoria v. Union Of India & Ors (2026) wherein it has been that the mechanical continuation of a LOC, in the absence of any necessity for the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, renders such restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly where the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor exhibited any intent to obstruct the investigation. It was further observed therein that repeated invocation of the writ jurisdiction for interim reliefs in such matters places an avoidable burden on judicial time, which could otherwise be devoted to cases involving substantive rights and pressing questions of law.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner did not pose a flight risk. “On several earlier occasions, this Court had granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad subject to conditions. The petitioner is stated to have adhered to all conditions imposed by the Court and returned to India within the stipulated time. Despite this meticulous conduct, the LOC has continued to remain in force without any fresh or contemporaneous material being placed on record to justify its continuation”, it added.

Holding that the absence of any supervening circumstance warranting restraint on the petitioner’s right to travel for the purposes of investigation renders the continuation of the LOC unnecessary, the Bench quashed the same. The Bench also asked the petitioner to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the investigating agency, affirming that she would continue to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating agency as and when required.

Cause Title: Maria Ramesh v. Union of India (Case No.: W.P.(C) 15701/2022)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashish Dholakia, Advocates Ankur Khandelwal, Chirag Sharma, Subhoday Banerjee, Nikhil Saurabh, Kajal Andhiwal

Respondent: SPC Sunandha Shukla, CGSC Arti Bansal, Advocate Shruti Goel

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.