Delhi HC upholds order rejecting plea of former Religare Promoter to travel abroad, says he may not come back to India to face investigation if given liberty to go abroad
Justice Dharmesh Sharma [26-06-2024]

Read Order: DR. SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE & ANR  [DEL HC- W.P.(CRL) 1879/2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 28, 2024: The Delhi High Court has declined the plea of former Religare Promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh to travel abroad for his sons’ graduation. Noting the fact that he has sizeable assets and properties outside India in foreign jurisdictions, the High Court observed that there is a strong inference that if liberty to go abroad is granted to him, he may not come back to India to face investigation and the trial, as and when it commences.

The petitioner had preferred the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Companies Act) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for suspension of LOC (Look Out Circular) and permission to travel abroad for the period from 14.06.2024 to 04.07.2024 and then again from 20.08.2024 to 10.09.2024, was declined.

The petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the investigation by the SFIO into the affairs of Fortis Healthcare Limited [FHL] and Religare Enterprises Limited [REL] and other sister concerns besides role of various individuals associated with such companies including that of the petitioner commenced from 17.02.2018 but till date no complaint/final report was filed by the SFIO against the petitioner. 

It was also submitted that the petitioner has not been arrested so far and even in December, 2021 when an application was filed by the petitioner for surrendering himself before the Court, the same was opposed by the SFIO, and rather, in its reply, it was stated that the status of the petitioner was not that of an accused “as of then”.

It was urged that the investigation had been ongoing for the last more than six years but the petitioner is no longer in control of the affairs of the companies which are under investigation. It was also submitted that the wife of the petitioner has been residing with him in India all along and only recently she has gone to the UK to attend the graduation ceremony of her son acknowledging that all the four sons of the petitioner are presently living abroad.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma opined that the SFIO is investigating into the affairs of the 'FHL' and 'REL' and other associated/sister concerns in exercise of its plenary powers under Section 212(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 in larger “public interest” as the matter involves allegations of fraud, misappropriation and siphoning off of the funds through use of multiple conduit companies, ever-greening of loans from the financial institutions and alleged losses caused to the companies and the public.

It was brought to the Court’s attention that the petitioner was a promoter of 'REL' having 16.31% shareholding through 'RHC', of which he was the non-executive director from 13.12.2004 to 06.04.2010. Thereafter, he held the post of non-executive director as well as Vice Chairman from 29.07.2016 to 14.02.2018 and was the Managing Director of 'FHL' from 13.11.2003 till 01.01.2016. Thereafter, he held the post of Director w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till 08.02.2018 thereby, controlling and managing the key operations of the 'REL' and 'FHL' throughout the said period. The alleged cases of misappropriation and siphoning off of funds occurred during his tenure in such capacities which resulted in losses assessed approximately to be Rs. 3780/- & Rs. 450 crores to 'REL' and 'FHL' respectively.

The Bench also observed that petitioner’s plea that he neither has any immovable properties in his name nor has any source of income in the affidavit, was not palatable considering his ITRs for the assessment years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, which prima facie brought out that he had assets/shareholding in the form of equity & preference shares in the company viz., Forthill International Limited, RHC Holding Pte. Limited situated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Singapore.

According to the Bench, the deposition by the petitioner in his affidavit that he had no assets or properties in India was manifestly not bringing forth the correct facts. The deposition was flawed with incomplete disclosure, and thus, did not inspire confidence. 

“The aforesaid narrative coupled with the documents placed on the record invite a strong inference that the petitioner has a huge financial base outside India and he has not come to the Court with clean hands and that by itself disentitles him to grant of any discretionary relief”, the Bench said while also adding, “...prima facie it appears that the petitioner has sizeable assets and properties, directly or indirectly, outside India in foreign jurisdictions as discussed hereinabove and there is a strong inference that if liberty to go abroad is granted to him, he may not come back to India to face the investigation and trial, as and when it commences.”

Thus, the Bench found that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad to attend the graduation ceremony of his two sons on the scheduled dates couldn’t be allowed. Dismissing the petition, the Bench said, “There are sufficient grounds to raise an inference that in case such liberty is granted to the petitioner, he may abuse the same and may not come back to India so as to scuttle the entire investigation and the ensuing process. Thus, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2024.”