Economic Offence Accused Must Remain Amenable to Law: Delhi HC Upholds Look Out Circular Citing Flight Risk and Non-Cooperation [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on November 18, 2025, dismissed a petition filed by Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney, a 76-year-old Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and UK resident, seeking to set aside a Special Judge’s order and obtain permission to travel to the United Kingdom for urgent medical treatment. Justice Ravinder Dudeja upheld the denial of travel, emphasizing the petitioner’s sustained pattern of non-cooperation with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the heightened risk of absconding, especially since her son, a co-accused, remains outside India.

The case stems from an SFIO investigation ordered in March 2022 into the alleged siphoning of approximately ₹208 crores from Indian and foreign banks by Net4 India Ltd. and related family-run companies. Mrs. Sawhney was stopped at IGI Airport in August 2022 pursuant to a Look Out Circular (LOC). She argued that her right to travel for medical treatment for serious ailments, including arrhythmia and the need for urgent MICRA AV device replacement, formed an integral part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Her counsel further contended that the investigation was complete and that continued restrictions were arbitrary, particularly since her role in the companies was merely non-executive.

The Court, however, relied on previous findings upholding the LOC, noting that the petitioner had actively held key positions and had signed the Master Reseller Agreement, which the investigation found was used to wrongfully channel ₹60 crores of revenue of Net4 India Ltd. (N4IL). Critically, the Court recorded that despite earlier judicial directions, Mrs. Sawhney failed to provide complete bank statements, appointed an inexperienced representative, and withheld full particulars of her son—demonstrating a “sustained pattern of evasiveness.” The Court rejected her claim of being a simple housewife unaware of the company’s affairs, pointing instead to her own filings before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which described her as a person of “very vast experience in the field of business and allied activities and great industrialist.”

On the plea of medical urgency, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that the required cardiac procedure was unavailable in India. Referring to established precedents, the judgment reiterated that when adequate treatment is available domestically, a mere preference for a foreign facility does not justify allowing an accused facing serious economic-offence allegations to leave the jurisdiction. Balancing the principles of personal liberty against the compelling public interest in ensuring that persons accused of grave economic offences remain amenable to the legal process, the Court concluded that the petition deserved to be dismissed.

Relevant Case Details:

Case Title: Mrs. Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union of India & Anr.

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 214/2025 & CRL.M.A. 1146/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Reserved On: 20.08.2025

Pronounced On: 18.11.2025

Order Challenged: Order dated 21.10.2024 in LA No. 01 in “SFIO v. Jasjit Singh Sawhney” (CC No. 746/2024), passed by the Ld. Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts

Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Maadhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Mr. Sanjivni Paritosh, Ms. Asees Kaur, Ms. Pragya, Ms. Rishika Jain, Advocates

Respondent’s Counsel: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms. Archana Surve, GP, Ms. Nupur Grover (SFIO), Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Advocates; Ms. Akanksha Bhadouria, Senior Assistant Director

[Read Judgment]