Fashion designer Malini Ramani’s counsel submitted in court that she had been cooperating with the investigation into a cheating case filed against her in 2021. The Delhi High Court Thursday sought the Delhi Police’s stand in a plea moved by fashion designer Malini Ramani seeking quashing of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her in connection with a 2021 FIR relating to a cheating case. A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice to the Union of India and the Delhi Police asking them to file their replies in two weeks and listed the matter for “final disposal” on August 28. Appearing for Ramani, who was booked under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code, senior advocate Vijay R Datar submitted that his client had “been cooperating with the investigation”. He said that the FIR was registered on January 11, 2021, and after more than 2.5 years, the “investigation is continuing without any reason”. Datar stated that the purpose of an LOC is “only to ensure the presence of the person against whom the circular is issued to cooperate in investigation and to be present at the time of any judicial proceedings or if required by a court”. During the course of the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Police said that the reason that the investigation is still pending is that the “petitioner is a US foreign national, and she is having a very large travel history”. He submitted that the case “prima facie involves the fraud of approximate Rs 2 crore”. When the court orally asked what was the “apprehension” of the police, the counsel said, “There has been an incident on January 28 when the petitioner tried to evade the territorial jurisdiction of India without informing us. She was trying to go to another country.” “Is there an impediment?” the high court asked to which the police counsel said that Ramani did not inform the investigating officer of the case. Datar submitted that his client was unaware of the LOC and that she was never informed about it. The police counsel further submitted that Ramani has a “US passport” and there are over “45 countries where she can go without applying for a visa”. “What if she goes and never comes back?” the counsel argued. “Therefore you will stop her from going anywhere, because of the fact that there is a (Section) 420 (IPC) case in which you have not even completed investigation? After three years?” the HC orally asked. The high court thereafter listed the matter in August for final disposal.