|
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against former NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy in connection with two CBI cases, directing that the relief would remain subject to their continued cooperation with the investigation.
Justice Sachin Datta, while quashing the LOCs, observed that the impugned action cannot be sustained, but clarified that the petitioners must cooperate with the probe agencies going forward. The High Court was informed that the LOCs had been opened at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to two FIRs registered in June 2017 and August 2019. While the 2017 case has already been closed, the 2019 case remains under investigation, with no chargesheet filed so far. The 2017 FIR stemmed from a complaint by Sanjay Dutt, a director of Quantum Securities Pvt Ltd, alleging that the Roys, along with RRPR Holdings, entered into a criminal conspiracy with ICICI Bank officials in relation to a loan transaction linked to acquisition of shares in NDTV. However, the CBI subsequently filed a closure report in the matter, concluding that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The agency noted that reduction in interest rates central to the allegations was not unique to NDTV and had been extended to several other loan accounts during the relevant period. In a related development, a Delhi court had earlier accepted the CBI's closure report in the same case, finding no criminality or violation of banking laws. The court recorded that the complainant had expressed satisfaction with the investigation and chose not to file any protest petition. The trial court observed that the materials on record, along with the CBI's findings, did not disclose any offence, including under Section 19(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The case had alleged a 48 crore loss to ICICI Bank in a 2009 loan settlement involving NDTV. It was claimed that RRPR Holdings, linked to the Roys, had taken a 500 crore loan to acquire a 20% stake in NDTV, and that the transaction involved regulatory violations and non-disclosure to authorities. These allegations were ultimately not substantiated during investigation. (ANI)
|
