Bombay High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed in an economic offences case, the Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., heavily criticized the Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’) of the Mumbai Police for not filing a charge sheet despite the lapse of four years since the registration of the case and accepted the statement of the EOW that the charge sheet would be filed within four weeks.
On 07-10-2020, an FIR was filed under Sections 120-B1, 342, 4203, 4064, 4095 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (‘MPID Act’).
The Court expressed displeasure that despite the lapse of four years, the EOW had not bothered to file a charge sheet. The Court noted that it was only after several orders passed by this Court for giving full effect to the MPID Act that the competent authority filed an application before the Trial Court, pursuant to which the properties were attached, and orders were passed to auction them.
The Court stated that whether it was the investors, which were 600 in the present case, or the accused, they had the legitimate expectation that the investigation would be concluded at the earliest. The Court highlighted that some of the investors, in the present case, were senior citizens who had invested lakhs of rupees. It was the duty of the EOW to ensure that the investigation was completed at the earliest and that it was taken to its logical end.
Highlighting that not even one charge sheet had been filed, the Court reiterated the law that police could continue the investigation under Section 173(8)6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and file supplementary charge sheets after filing the first charge sheet.
The Court further rebuked the EOW stating that the investors were constrained to run from pillar to post before all the authorities and engage advocates when it was the duty of the authorities to take appropriate steps. It was the duty of the State to ensure that offenders were brought to justice. The Court stated that the authorities took steps only with the orders of this Court.
The Court stated that it could have acted against the officers for not filing the charge sheet within a reasonable time but refrained from doing so on the assurance from the EOW that the charge sheet would be filed within four weeks.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court posted the case for 28-01-2025 to ensure that the charge sheet was filed within four weeks.
[Arvind Solanki v. State of Maharashtra, through Economic Offences Wing Unit-8, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3881, decided on 17-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Mutahar Khan, Sachin Mhatre, and Ishita S. Kamath
For the respondent: Public Prosecutor H.S. Venegavkar, APP P. P. Shinde, and Sonal Parab
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
5. Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
6. Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
