The Delhi High Court summoned an investigating officer of the Economic Offences Wing after allegations were made that he threatened a litigant and behaved rudely with the company’s lawyer. The Court directed the officer to appear personally on the next date of hearing while considering a petition filed by a company that complained about actions taken against it by authorities.
The order was passed by Justice Jasmeet Singh while hearing a plea filed by Shanky Financial Services against the Reserve Bank of India, a bank, and the Economic Offences Wing. The company had approached the Court challenging the lien placed on its bank account, claiming that the action had effectively brought its business operations to a halt and prevented it from paying its employees.
During the proceedings, the company also filed an application seeking an early hearing of its main petition. In this application, the company made allegations regarding the conduct of the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar. According to the submissions placed before the Court, the officer had visited the office of the company and allegedly threatened its representatives.
The company stated that during this visit the officer asked them to withdraw the petition that had been filed before the High Court seeking defreezing of the bank account. It was alleged that the officer warned the company that if the petition was not withdrawn, the company could be implicated in false and frivolous cases. The petitioner also placed CCTV footage of the officer’s visit before the Court as part of the material supporting its allegations.
According to the company, the officer treated the issue as a matter of prestige and questioned why the company had approached the Delhi High Court rather than the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner claimed that the officer’s statements and conduct were intended to pressure the company into withdrawing the legal proceedings it had initiated before the Court.
Apart from the allegations regarding the visit to the company’s office, the petition also referred to an incident involving the company’s lawyer. Advocate Tanisha Bhatia filed a separate affidavit describing her interaction with the investigating officer while attempting to serve him with an advance copy of the company’s petition. Under the procedural requirements of the Court, lawyers are required to serve advance copies of petitions to the concerned parties before the matter is taken up for hearing.
In her affidavit, the lawyer stated that she contacted the investigating officer to serve the advance copy of the petition. According to the affidavit, the officer responded rudely during the phone conversation and used abusive language. The lawyer alleged that the officer refused to accept the advance copy of the petition and made derogatory remarks during the conversation.
The affidavit further stated that the officer questioned why the document was being sent to him and told the lawyer not to send such copies again. According to the lawyer, the officer told her to serve the documents on the department instead of sending them to him directly and indicated that he would deal with the matter when it was formally communicated through official channels. The lawyer described the officer’s remarks as rude and inappropriate for professional communication during legal proceedings.
Following this interaction, the petitioner arranged for the notice of the petition to be served through the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Economic Offences Wing in Gurugram rather than directly serving the investigating officer. This step was taken after the officer allegedly refused to accept the advance copy of the petition when the lawyer attempted to serve it.
When the matter came up before the Court, the petitioner relied on these allegations while seeking an early hearing of the main plea challenging the lien placed on its bank account. However, the Court observed that it was not possible to advance the hearing of the matter earlier than the date already fixed. The Court noted that the existing roster did not permit listing the case before the scheduled date and therefore the matter would be taken up on the date already assigned.
While declining the request for an earlier hearing, the Court took note of the allegations made against the investigating officer regarding threats to the litigant and the alleged misconduct during the interaction with the lawyer. Considering the seriousness of these allegations, Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the officer concerned must remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed that notice be served to the officer through the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Economic Offences Wing in Gurugram. The notice is to be served through all available modes, including electronic communication, after the petitioner completes the necessary steps within the time granted by the Court.
The direction requiring the personal presence of the investigating officer was issued so that the Court could examine the allegations made against him during the proceedings. By ordering the officer to appear before the Court, the High Court indicated that the claims regarding threats to the litigant and the alleged rude behaviour towards the lawyer would be considered during the hearing of the case.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up on the next date already fixed by the Court. On that date, the investigating officer is expected to appear before the Court in compliance with the direction issued. The proceedings will then continue with the Court examining the issues raised in the petition, including the challenge to the lien placed on the petitioner company’s bank account as well as the allegations concerning the conduct of the investigating officer.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.