The Delhi High Court has ruled that the transfer of an investigation to another agency is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases, particularly when high-ranking state officials are involved.

The Court emphasized that mere accusations against an investigating officer do not justify a transfer unless substantial evidence establishes collusion with the accused.

The Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while rejecting two petitions seeking the transfer of 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), observed that such transfers should be avoided as they adversely impact police morale.

"Accusations against an investigating officer alone is not sufficient to transfer investigation unless there is sufficient material to show that the investigating officer is mixed up with the accused. Bald allegations are not sufficient for transfer of investigation. In fact, transfer of investigation from the investigating agency hits at the morale of the Police which must be avoided at all costs," the Court observed.

Case Background and Court's Findings

The petitions were filed by multiple individuals alleging that the accused had siphoned funds from homebuyers and investors. The petitioners sought an independent probe, claiming dissatisfaction with the ongoing investigation.

However, the Court noted that the investigation was being conducted under the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and was subject to judicial monitoring. It found no evidence to suggest that the investigating agency had been lax or biased.

"The court is satisfied with the investigation, and dissatisfaction of the complainants alone cannot be a ground for transfer," the Single Bench said. He further emphasized that an investigation cannot be shifted merely because the agency is not acting as per the complainants’ expectations.

The Court ordered, "In the absence of any material placed before this Court as to why the investigating agency has been lax and just because investigating agency is not acting under the dictates of the Complainants or the Complainants are not satisfied alone cannot be the factor for transfer of investigation. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed along with pending application(s), if any."

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

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Subramonium Prasad

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.