DHFL Fraud Case: Delhi Court Shuts Down CBI's Bid for Additional Charges Against Wadhawan Brothers
A Delhi court has denied the CBI's request to add new charges against the Wadhawan brothers in the DHFL bank fraud case, citing a lack of review power.
In a significant blow to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a special court in Delhi has rejected a plea to add more charges against former DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan. The court, presiding over the high-profile bank fraud case, ruled that it does not possess the authority to review its own order regarding charges, except in instances involving clerical or typographical mistakes.
The Court's Ruling on Judicial Review
Special Judge (CBI) Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra of the Rouse Avenue District Court clarified the boundaries of judicial power while deciding on the CBI's application. The judge noted that while a party can bring new material to the court's attention that might justify altering or adding charges, there is no "vested right" for any party to demand such changes.
The court emphasized that the power to alter charges is exclusively vested in the judiciary, not as a remedy for a party dissatisfied with a previous decision. This order was passed on October 29, addressing an application filed by the CBI under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
What the CBI Was Seeking
The CBI had approached the court to amend charges that were originally framed on July 30. The agency's request included several stringent additions:
- Section 409 IPC: The CBI sought this charge against both Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan.
- Section 467 IPC: This charge was requested against the Wadhawan brothers and co-accused S.M.N. Naqvi.
- Criminal Conspiracy: The agency sought charges under Section 120B read with Section 467 IPC for specific accused, and a general charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC against all individuals involved in the case.
- Additional Charges: The plea also sought new charges against co-accused Ajay Nawandar and requested clarifications on previous observations made by the court.
Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S Sharrma argued that Section 216 CrPC allows for the alteration of charges at any point before the final judgment is delivered. He further contended that the accused would not be prejudiced by this move, as the recording of evidence had only just begun and only formal witnesses had been examined so far. The CBI also pointed toward a Delhi High Court order from August 19, which had allowed parties to seek legal remedies before the trial court.
The Defense's Counter-Argument
Advocates Nagesh Behl and Vishal Gaurav, representing the Wadhawan brothers, strongly opposed the application. They argued that the CBI was essentially trying to reopen issues that the court had already meticulously examined and decided in its detailed July 30 order.
The defense maintained that the CBI's application was not about correcting a simple mistake but was a "substantive reconsideration" of the court's findings. They pointed out that the CBI had introduced no new evidence to justify the additional charges. Specifically, they noted that the charge under Section 467 IPC was neither part of the original charge-sheet nor raised during the initial arguments on framing charges.
Arguments Against "Continuing Conspiracy"
The defense further challenged the CBI's logic regarding conspiracy, arguing that the concept of a "continuing conspiracy" cannot be used as a blanket tool to make every accused person liable for every single offense committed throughout the case.
Adding to this, Advocate Hemant Shah, representing Ajay Nawandar, argued that Section 216 CrPC is an enabling provision meant to correct genuine omissions or respond to new evidence emerging during a trial. He asserted that it is not a tool for a party to express dissatisfaction with a judicial order, as criminal courts lack the inherent power to review or recall their own decisions.