Delhi HC Rejects British Citizen's Plea To Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment Finding His Involvement In Money Laundering Case
The Delhi High Court has rejected the request of a British citizen, who was facing money laundering charges, to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the petitioner's request to cancel the look-out circular (LOC) that had been issued based on the complaint from the Enforcement department, was denied. The petitioner had also sought permission to travel abroad to receive treatment for his rare medical condition, which was affecting his vision.
While acknowledging that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental and essential human right, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that “Taking into account that the facts are serious in nature and the medical treatment is available in India, the order of the learned Trial Court is well reasoned, there is no ground to consider the prayer for travel abroad of the petitioner. It is also a settled proposition that the power under Section 482 Cr. PC is to be exercised wherein such power can only be used to prevent the miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of law”.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Respondent.
As per the brief facts, the petitioner, a British citizen of Indian origin, had resided in India since 2008. He held directorship positions in two companies, M/S Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd and M/S Zenica Performance Cars Pvt Ltd. These companies served as dealers for Audi and Porsche cars. The petitioner, acting on behalf of these companies, had approached HDFC Bank to secure various credit facilities. The bank had extended these facilities based on financial documents and information provided by the accused. To secure these facilities, a Deed of Hypothecation had been executed between the petitioner and the bank. Subsequently, it had come to light that the company had incurred significant losses over the past financial years and had engaged in document forgery to obtain credit facilities. An investigation revealed that the petitioner had allegedly committed offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), involving the acquisition of proceeds of crime amounting to 115 crores in the form of a loan from HDFC Bank for his company's operations.
The counsel representing the Directorate of Enforcement had argued that granting permission for the petitioner to travel abroad raised concerns. They contended that due to the petitioner's British citizenship, there was a risk of him fleeing to a foreign country, which could result in a lengthy extradition process. It was pointed out that the petitioner sought permission to travel abroad for ‘laser retinopexy’, a treatment readily available in India. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the petitioner owned various properties abroad, and possessed sufficient financial resources to support himself. Since India lacked an extradition treaty with Italy, there was a significant possibility of the accused evading legal proceedings. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petitioner was also facing charges in four more FIRs registered by the Economic Offense Wing.
After considering the submission, the Bench observed that every individual has the right to receive effective and appropriate medical treatment.
However, the Bench also emphasized the need to strike a balance between the individual's right and the rights of the prosecuting agency, and recognized that the prosecuting agency has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the accused does not abscond and is available for trial.
The Bench noted that there were serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner had sought permission to travel abroad for ‘Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy’ treatment. However, it was on record that this treatment was readily available in various hospitals in India, including Medanta Hospital and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS.
Therefore, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the availability of the required medical treatment in India, the High Court upheld the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court and concluded that there were no grounds to grant the petitioner's request to travel abroad.
Cause Title: Mandhir Singh Todd v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023: DHC: 6876]
Click here to read/ download the Judgment
