DCP-supervised investigation complied with judicial directions; filing a closure report did not constitute contempt.

The petitioners filed four contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 23 August 2018 in W.P.(CRL) No. 1666/2013 and connected matters, which required the investigation to be conducted under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (“DCP”).

During the subsequent proceedings, the accused persons approached the Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) No. 8277/2018.

The Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”) thereafter sought permission from the Supreme Court to file a chargesheet, and its application was allowed on 21 January 2025; the proceedings were disposed of on 28 January 2025.

The petitioners alleged that, instead of filing a chargesheet, the EOW filed a Closure Report, contrary to its earlier position, and that the Closure Report had not been prepared under the supervision of the DCP.

The respondents produced the original EOW file before the High Court for examination.

Whether the filing of a Closure Report, instead of a chargesheet, constituted wilful disobedience of the High Court’s judgment dated 23 August 2018.

Whether the investigation and filing of the Closure Report were carried out under the supervision of the DCP and other senior EOW officers, as required by the earlier judgment.

The Court applied the contempt-law requirement that disobedience must be wilful and deliberate before contempt jurisdiction can be invoked.

It further applied the operative direction in the High Court’s judgment dated 23 August 2018 requiring the investigation to be conducted under the supervision of the DCP.

The Court also considered the effect of the Supreme Court’s orders dated 21 and 28 January 2025 concerning the EOW’s request to file a chargesheet.

No separate statutory provision or precedent is expressly cited in the judgment beyond these orders and the earlier directions.

The Court examined the original EOW file rather than relying solely on the parties’ competing submissions.

It found that the Closure Report had been considered by the Joint Commissioner of Police/EOW, Special Commissioner of Police/EOW, ACP, DCP-II/EOW, and other investigating officers.

The record further showed that the Closure Report had been recommended and endorsed by the ACP and DCP.

Consequently, the Court held that the investigation had in fact been conducted under DCP supervision, satisfying the requirement imposed by the 2018 judgment.

The filing of a Closure Report, despite the EOW’s earlier intention to file a chargesheet, did not by itself establish wilful disobedience, particularly when the investigation had been supervised and approved by the competent senior officers.

It accepted, on the respondents’ instructions, that the investigation had been duly conducted under the supervision of the DCP and other senior officers in accordance with the earlier judgment.

The four contempt petitions were accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.