Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Shalini Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG-3 for the State assisted by Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate, Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Economic Offence Unit (in short ‘EOU’) assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel who has entered appearance today on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. It is recorded that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8, however, the Court has heard learned senior counsel for those respondents.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking following reliefs: –
“(I) For issuance of appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of MANDAMUS for direction/s to Respondent No.-1 to do investigation in embezzlement of Rs.100 crores of the petitioners who have been duped by the respondent no. 7 & 8 on pretext of getting flats/plots for them. Respondent No. 1 actions/inaction and dereliction of the duties vested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has failed to initiate investigation against Respondent No. 7 & 8 for their role
The court reinforced the necessity for prompt and effective investigation of economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, highlighting the accountability of State authorities....
The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation by the Economic Offence Unit and the transfer of all FIRs to the Economic Offence Police Station.
The court established that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct an investigation by a specific agency unless there is a prima facie case supported by substantial evidence, and that alternati....
The court's emphasis on the conclusion of the investigation by Investigating Agencies as a central legal point.
Further investigation – Order directing handing over investigation to any other agency other than police should not be passed in favour of party applying for it as a matter of right or in a routine m....
The court has the jurisdiction to entertain petitions with a public law element, and inadequate investigation justifies transfer to a central agency.
The High Court upheld the trial court's discretion regarding further investigation, ruling that no illegality was found in the prior investigations conducted by CBI.
The High Court emphasized that CBI investigations are warranted only in exceptional cases; existing agency actions sufficiently addressed the fraud allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article