Malini Ramani vs Union Of India & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 29.05.2026
W.P.(C) 8256/2023, CM APPL. 31782/2023
+
MALINI RAMANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Ms.
Meenal Duggal, Mr. Saurav Joon and
Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC
along with Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Wariach, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr.
Amulya Dev Mishra, Advocates
along with SI Amalak (PS Mehrauli)
and SI Vinod (PS Mahrauli).
Mr. Hashim Khan and Mr. Syed
Mustafa Mumtaz, Advocates for
proposed respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the
Look Out Circular (LOC) issued at the instance of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, vide reference No.
10760/SO/DCP/SD/AC-IV dated 06.12.2022, in connection with FIR No.
17/2021 dated 11.01.2021 registered at Police Station Mehrauli for the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
2. The petitioner is a foreign national and holds a passport issued by the
United States.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she became aware, sometime in the
year 2023, of the existence of the impugned LOC, pursuant to which she
was restrained from travelling back to the United States
.
4. Aggrieved by the issuance as well as the continued operation of the
said LOC, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing
thereof.
5. In support of the petitioner’s case, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has advanced the following submissions:–
a. It is submitted that the allegations in the subject FIR arise out of a
partnership business carried on under the name and style of M/s. Bliss
Design India pursuant to a Partnership Deed dated 16.08.2018,
wherein the Complainant and the Accused/petitioner were equal
partners holding 50% share each.
b. It is contended that the allegations essentially pertain to losses
suffered by the partnership business, closure of the business, and
alleged financial losses suffered by the partners. It is submitted that
the contents of the FIR, ex facie, disclose at best a civil or commercial
dispute arising out of partnership transactions and do not reveal the
commission of any criminal offence.
c. It is further the case of the petitioner that the LoC was issued in undue
haste and without proper notice requiring the petitioner to join
investigation. Upon becoming aware of the FIR and the LoC, the
petitioner duly cooperated with the investigation and joined the
proceedings whenever called upon to do so.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
d. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Status Reports dated
28.08.2023 and 28.04.2025 filed by Police Station Mehrauli
, to show
that the petitioner has consistently joined and cooperated with the
investigation. It is further emphasises that the Status Reports also
record that the accountant of the firm, Ms. Sonia, and Chartered
Accountant Rahul Kapoor were examined during investigation.
e. It is further emphasised that the Status Report dated 28.04.2025
records that repeated notices under Section 91 CrPC were issued to
the complainant for production of the balance sheet of the firm,
however, the complainant failed to produce the same, as a result
whereof the investigation could not be concluded.
f. It is submitted that since the year 2023, the petitioner has remained
available in India and has joined investigation before multiple
Investigating Officers appointed in the matter. Even recently, upon
receipt of notice dated 29.11.2025, the petitioner again joined
investigation on 10.12.2025 and furnished the requisite information.
Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has fully cooperated with the
investigation and there exists no justification for continuation of the
LoC.
g. It is contended that the present case does not fall within the categories
warranting issuance of a Lookout Circular under the relevant Office
Memoranda issued from time to time, nor does it satisfy the
parameters laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director, 2010
SCC OnLine Delhi 2699 governing issuance of LoCs. It is further
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
submitted that the petitioner’s travel would not prejudice the
economic interests of the country in any manner.
h. Reliance is further placed upon Puja Chadha v. Directorate of
, 2025:DHC:8787 wherein the LoC was quashed subject
Enforcement
to furnishing of an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and
appear as and when directed. The petitioner herein expresses
willingness to furnish a similar undertaking before this Hon’ble Court.
i. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment in
Thilakasri Krepanand
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors . W.P. (CRL) 566 of 2023, Shri
Sathish Babu Sana v. CBI, 2022:DHC:332 and Tuhin Kumar
Biswas v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 1373 and Inder Chand
.
Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri, 2025 INSC 1350
j. The petitioner undertakes to continue to cooperate with the
investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer and the
concerned Court as and when required or directed.
6. On the other hand the respondents have submitted that the impugned
LOC has been issued against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.
17/2021 registered at Police Station Mehrauli
under Section 420 IPC
pertaining to allegations of cheating involving substantial financial
transactions arising out of a partnership business.
7. It is submitted that FIR No. 17/2021 was registered on the complaint
of Ms. Vaishali Ali alleging that the petitioner induced her to invest
substantial amounts into the business of M/s Bliss Design India on
assurances of high returns and thereafter failed to return the invested sums.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
8. It is submitted that a Look Out Circular is an administrative measure
and the scope of judicial review is limited to examining arbitrariness or mala
fides. During the course of hearing, it is acceded that the petitioner has been
cooperating with the investigation.
9. Both the parties have been heard. The legal position governing the
circumstances in which an investigating agency may seek recourse to
issuance of a Look Out Circular is well settled. The issue was
comprehensively considered by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst.
Director (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced as under –
“The questions raised in the reference are as under:
A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency
can seek recourse of Look-out-Circular and under what circumstances
B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating
agency opening a Look-out-circular?
C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such
Lookout-Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought
it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene?
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable
offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was
deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite
NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the
accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the
officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving
details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall
give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by
appearing I.O. or should surrender the court concerned or should
satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also
approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the
authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where
case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on
an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the
investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts'
jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the
jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs
10. Thus, the Court held that recourse to an LOC may be taken in cases
.”
involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws where the
accused is deliberately evading arrest or failing to appear before the trial
court despite the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) and other
coercive measures, and where there exists a likelihood that the accused may
leave the country in order to evade arrest or trial. It was further clarified that
an LOC is essentially a coercive measure intended to secure the presence of
a person before the investigating agency or the court of law.
11. It is equally well settled, in terms of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
(1978) 1 SCC 248 and subsequent judicial pronouncements, that the
India
right to travel abroad constitutes an integral facet of the right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Any restriction imposed upon such right must satisfy the tests of fairness,
reasonableness, and proportionality.
12. In the present case, it is noticed that the FIR in connection with which
the impugned LOC has been issued against the petitioner is dated
11.01.2021, and the impugned LOC came to be issued on 06.12.2022. The
status reports filed on behalf of the respondents further reveal that the
investigation has remained pending since then and is still continuing.
Vide order dated 21.11.2023, this Court recorded as under:–
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
“1. Learned Counsel for the Delhi Police prays for some more time
stating that the investigation will be concluded within two months
from today.”
13. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.01.2024, this Court observed as
under:–
1. On 21.11.2023, the learned Counsel for Delhi Police sought time
on the ground that the investigation would be completed within two
months.
2. Today, the learned Counsel for the Delhi Police prays for some
more time stating that investigation will be completed within four
weeks from today.
3. Since the matter pertains to Look Out Circular, it is expected that
the investigation will be completed within the time period as sought
for.
14. Further, in the status report dated 28.04.2025 filed by respondent no.
2, it has been stated that several notices under Section 91 CrPC were issued
to the complainant seeking production of the balance sheet of the alleged
firm, however, the complainant failed to produce the same and,
consequently, the investigation could not be concluded. It has further been
stated that the investigation is still in progress.
15. It is, therefore, evident that the investigation in the present case has
remained pending since 2021, i.e., the year in which the FIR was registered,
and has yet to culminate in any final outcome. Significantly, there are no
allegations whatsoever on record regarding any non-cooperation on the part
of the petitioner. On the contrary, it is acceded that the petitioner has
cooperated with the investigation and has further volunteered to furnish an
undertaking by way of affidavit affirming that she shall continue to
cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50
16. The impugned LOC has remained operational for more than three
years. Despite the prolonged pendency of the investigation, there is no
material on record to indicate that the petitioner has either attempted to
evade the process of law or failed to cooperate with the investigating
agency.
17. In this regard, reference may also be made to the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
in Showik Indrajit Chakraborty
v. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation ,
2024:BHC AS:8457 DB, wherein it was observed as under:– –
“23 LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there
is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately
evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other
reason. An LOC is a coercive measure to make the person surrender
and as such interferes with the person’s right of personal liberty and
free movement and curtails the fundamental right of an individual to
travel, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
18. In view of the foregoing, the impugned LOC(s) is hereby quashed,
subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking by way of an affidavit
affirming that she shall:
(i) continue to cooperate in the investigation and appear before the trial
Court and/or the investigating agency, as and when required or directed, and
render full cooperation in any ongoing proceeding/s and investigation/s; and
(ii) provide all material/documents requested from her by the investigating
agencies, and as may be available within her power or possession.
19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
MAY 29, 2026/sv
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8256/2023 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:31.05.2026
20:47:50