Bald Claims Against Investigating Officer Not Enough to Move Investigation: Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court has stated that moving an investigation to a different agency should only happen in rare and special situations, especially when senior state officials are involved. The Court pointed out that simply accusing an investigating officer is not enough to warrant a transfer unless there is strong evidence of collusion with the accused. Justice Subramonium Prasad, while dismissing two requests to shift an FIR from the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police to a Special Investigative Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), noted that such transfers can harm police morale. The Court remarked, “Accusations against an investigating officer alone are not enough for a transfer unless there is clear evidence of their involvement with the accused. Unfounded claims do not justify a transfer. In fact, moving the investigation from the current agency negatively affects police morale, which should be avoided.”
The petitions were submitted by several individuals who claimed that the accused had misappropriated funds from homebuyers and investors. The petitioners requested an independent investigation, expressing dissatisfaction with the current one. However, the Court highlighted that the investigation was being overseen by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and was under judicial review. It found no proof that the investigating agency was negligent or biased.
The court is pleased with the investigation, stating that the complainants’ dissatisfaction alone is not enough to justify a transfer, according to the Single Bench. He pointed out that an investigation cannot be moved just because the agency is not meeting the complainants’ expectations. The Court ruled, “Without any evidence showing why the investigating agency has been negligent, the fact that the agency is not following the complainants’ wishes or that the complainants are unhappy is not a valid reason for transferring the investigation. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed along with any pending applications.”
Cause Title: Renuka Kulkarni & Ors v. State and other connected matter [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 752]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocates Siddharth Yadav, Punya Rekha Angara, Sharian Mukherji, Aman Akhtar, Dishant Tiwari, Syed Murtuza Ahmed, Fuzail Mansuri, Faizan Ansari
Respondent: Advocates Nandita Rao (ASC), Amit Peswani, Satya Prakash Yadav, Sunil Kumar Thakur
