The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair investigation and trial, the limitations on the power to transfer investigation, and the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such transfer.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(a) Issue a writ and/or order and/or direction for transfer of the investigation into FIR No. 365 of 2017, registered by P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, from the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, Section VI to the Central Bureau of Investigation since the investigations have been compromised in collusion with the accused and Mr.Stefano Bagianti, as detailed in the writ petition, and the matter requires international investigation spanning several countries such as Switzerland, Italy, South Korea, Singapore, China, etc.;

(b) Examine the case record and set aside the biased investigation conducted and/or report prepared by the investigating officer in collusion with the accused;

(c) Direct CBI to register an FIR under the provisions of Section 217, 218, 219 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Respondent Nos. 2, Mr. Stefano Bagianti, accused Claudio De Simone and accused Kanwaldeep Singh Chadha for conspiring with each other to enable Mr. Stefano Bagianti to gain unlawful access to the entire case file during the investigations and illegally influencing such investigations;

(d) Direct the Police Commissioner to initiate a departmental enquiry against the investigating officer and other errant officers;

(e) xxxxxxx.”

2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petition is filed on account of subversion of entire process of law by the Investigating Officer and other officers to shield the accused persons in FIR No.365/2017 registered at PS, Safadurjung Enclave, Delhi, due to the undue influence exercised by Mr.Stefano Bagianti (an Italian lawyer), accused Claudio De Simone and accused Kanwaldeep Singh Chadha.

3. It is submitted in a legal proceeding in Switzerland against accused Claudio De Simone for money laundering, (he being a prime accused in FIR No.365/2017) he filed a memo of defense dated 14.05.2020 along with a letter dated 10.03.2020 of his Italian lawyer, Mr.Stefano wherein Mr.Stefano asserted he had visited India between July, 24 to 26, 2019 and met four police officials in various capacities, incharge of this investigation and during a plenary meeting on July 25, 2019 was provided direct access to the entire case file.

4. Mr. Bagianti categorically stated in the presence of these officers, he directly examined the case file which included the names of witnesses, witness statements and other incriminating evidence against the accused persons, including accused Claudio De Simone and accused Kanwaldeep Singh Chadha and that it is shocking as to how Mr.Bagianti was able to meet the four officers involved in the investigation in various capacities (all together) and how he was allowed to examine the case file containing voluminous evidence.

5. Further it is submitted by the learned senior counsel in a letter dated 10.03.2020 Mr.Stefano further asserted he was assured by respondent no.2 and other officials involved in investigation that a closure report shall be filed in FIR No.365/2017 and on 09.09.2019 over a telephone call the Investigating Officer i.e. respondent no.2 had assured him the matter be considered settled.

6. It is argued the access of case diaries/case file given to Mr.Stefano by respondent no.2 and other police officials, involved in the investigation, was wholly illegal and is strictly prohibited under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and they had compromised the investigation.

7. It is argued a deep rooted nexus is apparent between the accused and the State machinery and therefore this Court should order for transfer of investigation from Delhi Police to CBI and/or the Crime Branch. It is further argued the main accused Claudio De Simone was never summoned despite there being an FIR against him and yet a closure report is filed without his summoning, which is never heard of.

8. It is argued the complaint against the accused was of misusing of forged documents outside India, siphoning of monies of the petitioner thr