Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

CBI cannot be flooded with cases; local police are capable of investigating complex conspiracies:  Delhi HC Transfers Investigation Into Mysterious Death to Crime Branch

02 October 2024 8:13 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court in W.P.(CRL) 710/2024 transferred the investigation into the death of Kartik Gandhi to the Delhi Crime Branch. The petitioner, Kartik's mother, Geeta Gandhi, had sought a CBI investigation, alleging that her son was murdered as part of a conspiracy over property disputes. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the CBI probe but ordered a fresh, thorough investigation by the Crime Branch, emphasizing the need for justice and transparency.

The petitioner alleged that her son, Kartik Gandhi, was murdered by a group of individuals involved in a long-standing property dispute with her. Kartik had traveled to Leh with one of the suspects, Aditya Singh, in December 2023, and was critically injured in a car accident there. Although he survived initially, Kartik succumbed to his injuries on January 15, 2024. The petitioner accused the suspects, including Aditya Singh, of orchestrating the accident to pressure her into selling her property. She further claimed that Kartik had been manipulated and framed in multiple legal cases as part of a conspiracy against her.

The primary issue was whether the case warranted a CBI investigation due to the alleged interstate conspiracy and the petitioner’s claim of bias against the local police. The Court acknowledged that a fair investigation is a constitutional right but ruled that the Delhi Police could conduct the investigation, as they had handled equally sensitive cases in the past.

Justice Sharma cited Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that CBI investigations should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances. The Court found that transferring the case to the Crime Branch would address the petitioner’s concerns without overburdening the CBI.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea for a CBI probe, noting that the case did not involve national or international ramifications. However, the Court transferred the investigation from Nubra Police in Leh to the Crime Branch in Delhi, directing them to conduct a de novo inquiry, including allegations of conspiracy and manipulation of evidence. The Crime Branch was instructed to add any necessary legal provisions based on their findings.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling balances the petitioner’s demand for a thorough investigation with the judicial principle of sparingly using CBI’s resources. By transferring the case to the Crime Branch, the Court ensured that the allegations would be rigorously examined while maintaining the integrity of local law enforcement.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Geeta Gandhi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (

Latest Legal News