Delhi Court refuses to cancel LoC issued against ATS Infrastructure Promotor

New Delhi [India], October 14 : The Patiala House Court of Delhi has refused to cancel the look-out circular (LoC) issued against ATS Infrastructure Ltd's Promotor Geetamber Anand and his wife Poonam Anand in connection with FIRs registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police.
The Economic Offences Wing had filed an FIR against the directors and promoters of ATS Infrastructure Limited after homebuyers reported being defrauded of their investments in the company's projects.
Judicial Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal has recently dismissed the application moved by Geetambar Anand and Poonam Anand and stated that I do not see sufficient reasons to direct the recall or cancellation of LOC.
He further stated that it is no doubt correct that the accused has appeared to join the investigation in the present matter as and when required, however, the LOC appears to be a safeguard to ensure that the judicial process is not frustrated in any manner.
Even if the applicants are directed to obtain prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad, the accused could always travel without obtaining any such permission and there would be no way for the Court to enforce a condition of that nature.
However, I may note that it is not proper for the concerned authorities to stop an accused person while travelling abroad without conveying the reasons for stalling the travel. It is a basic right of the accused to know the reasons for stalling his travel and the same must be conveyed said the court.
The court also took note of the submission made by Advocate Sanjay Abbot representing the Complainants' Home buyers. He submitted that the genesis of the dispute in the present matter originates from a fraudulent agreement entered into by the accused persons, whereby an amount of Rs.113 Crores was taken from the complainants. The said amount was to be repaid in a certain manner and the applicants completely violated the terms of the agreement.
The Advocate Abbot also submitted that the applicants have violated the directions issued by the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the parties. Further, applicant Geetamber Anand is facing personal insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, New Delhi along with an investigation being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate.
Court further noted that in the present matter, it is the admitted position that the LOC was opened in 2023 i.e. almost two years after the registration of the present FIR. The explanation in this regard is that the LOC was opened as fresh FIRs came to be registered against the accused
persons and similar allegations were levelled in the said FIRs as well, thereby indicating that multiple victims, both identified and un-identified, are involved in the batch of cases pending against the accused.
Perusal of the report in this regard reveals that two FIRs came to be registered at EoW on 02.11.2023 and the LOC was opened immediately thereafter.
The court also noted that It is noteworthy that the said FIRs were also registered at the same police station as the present case i.e. P.S. EoW. It also appears from the record that the present case involves the highest quantum of cheated amount i.e. Rs.113 Crores. It is also made out from the record that serious observations regarding the conduct of the accused have been recorded by the Sole Arbitrator in the pending arbitration proceedings. It has even been recorded that the applicants have indulged in the creation of false evidence and concealment.
Admittedly, contempt proceedings against Geetambar Anand are also pending before the Delhi High Court moreover, personal insolvency proceedings have commenced against the applicant Geetambar Anand and the same may have a direct bearing on the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, specifically because certain directions for depositing the amount have not been complied with. If an overall view of these circumstances is to be taken, it could be seen that the deep stakes of the applicants are involved in the present case as well as the parallel cases pending before various forums.
Although, I do not doubt observing that the communication for opening LOC, sent by the concerned DCP, could have been better reasoned, however, the adequacy of reasons is made out from the circumstances mentioned above. In such a scenario, merely because the said reasons were not explained in detail in the said communication, the LOC could not be cancelled as the accused appears to be a flight risk, specifically after the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings against him.
Any inadvertence or lapse regarding the foreign travel of the accused, in such circumstances, could frustrate not only the present investigation but also a series of other cases, noted the court.