Introduction:

In a strong rebuke to the Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), the Bombay High Court recently criticized the prolonged delay in the investigation of a fraud case under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act). The case, filed in October 2020, involves more than 600 investors, many of whom are senior citizens, who have been left in uncertainty for nearly four years due to the lack of progress in the investigation. The petition, titled Arvind Solanki vs. the State of Maharashtra, was brought before the court seeking a resolution to the delay, which has left investors in a state of limbo, awaiting justice. The petition highlighted the failure of the EOW to file the charge sheet in the case despite the registration of the FIR in 2020, leading to the Court’s strong intervention.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Arvind Solanki, represented by advocates Mutahar Khan, Sachin Mhatre, and Ishita Kamath, raised concerns over the delay in the investigation of the fraud case, which was filed under sections of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) and the MPID Act. The petitioner emphasized that the EOW’s failure to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet had caused immense distress to more than 600 investors, including senior citizens who had invested large sums of money. The delay in the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners argued, was not only a failure of law enforcement but also an injustice to the investors, who were left to endure a prolonged period of uncertainty.

The State, represented by Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar and Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde, attempted to defend the delay by explaining the complexities of the case. They argued that the investigation was still ongoing and that it required time to thoroughly examine the evidence and interview the necessary witnesses. However, the bench was not convinced by the explanation, particularly given the length of time that had passed since the FIR was registered. The EOW had not filed even a basic charge sheet, even though more than four years had passed since the case was transferred to their unit.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K Chavan expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the EOW’s handling of the case. The Court pointed out that investigations in criminal cases cannot be allowed to linger on indefinitely, especially in a case involving financial fraud where the affected parties are waiting for justice. The Court observed that it was a “classic case where investors have been let down” by the EOW and made it clear that both the investors and the accused had a legitimate expectation for the investigation to be completed expeditiously.

The bench noted that the FIR had been registered on October 7, 2020, for offences under IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent), along with provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. Despite this, the EOW had failed to file the charge sheet or provide any substantial progress on the case. The Court emphasized that such a delay could not be justified, particularly given the number of affected investors, some of whom were senior citizens who had invested their life savings.

The judges expressed their concern over the lack of accountability within the EOW, stating that it was the duty of the police to ensure that investigations are completed in a timely and efficient manner. The Court further remarked that the delay was a betrayal of the investors’ legitimate right to see the investigation completed and the perpetrators brought to justice. They criticized the fact that the investors were left to navigate bureaucratic hurdles, hiring advocates and running from pillar to post to get answers.

The Court also pointed to the provisions of Section 218 of the IPC, which addresses the failure of officers to file a charge sheet within a reasonable time. The bench made it clear that if the situation did not improve, they would consider invoking Section 218 and even initiate prosecution against the officers involved in the delay. The judges warned that they could also direct a departmental inquiry against those responsible for the prolonged investigation.

Despite their strong observations, the Court refrained from taking immediate action, including initiating prosecution or ordering a departmental inquiry. Instead, the bench accepted the statement made by the Chief Public Prosecutor, who assured that the charge sheet would be filed within four weeks. This commitment was made on behalf of the higher-ups in the EOW, and the Court placed its trust in this assurance, expressing hope that the investigation would be carried out in earnest from that point onward.

The judges also raised the possibility of transferring the investigation to a Special Investigating Team (SIT) if the EOW continued to show a lack of interest in the case. However, given the assurance to file the charge sheet, the Court opted to adjourn the matter until January 28, 2025, to allow the EOW to take the necessary steps and file the charge sheet as promised.