India News | DHFL Case: Delhi Court Rejects CBI Plea for Additional Charges Against Wadhawan Brothers, Says It Cannot Review Charge Order
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. A special court in Delhi has rejected the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea seeking additional charges, including under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), against former DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan in the alleged bank fraud case, observing that it cannot review its own order on charges except to correct clerical or typographical errors.
New Delhi [India], October 30 (ANI): A special court in Delhi has rejected the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea seeking additional charges, including under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), against former DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan in the alleged bank fraud case, observing that it cannot review its own order on charges except to correct clerical or typographical errors.
Special Judge (CBI) Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra of the Rouse Avenue District Court held that although a party may bring material to the court’s notice warranting alteration or addition of charges, no party has a vested right to seek such alteration as a matter of right, since the power is exclusively vested in the court.
Also Read | J&K Police Bust Terror Financing Module in Shopian, 10 Arrested.
The court passed the order on October 29 while deciding an application filed by the CBI under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking amendment of the charges framed on July 30, 2026.
The CBI had sought framing of a charge under Section 409 IPC against Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan. It also sought charges under Section 467 IPC against the Wadhawan brothers and co-accused S.M.N. Naqvi, along with criminal conspiracy charges under Section 120B read with Section 467 IPC against the concerned accused.
Also Read | Pune Latest News Today on October 30th, 2026: Water Penalty, Bank Fraud & MLC Election Analysis.
The agency further sought a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC against all accused for the offences in the case, besides additional charges against co-accused Ajay Nawandar and clarification of certain observations in the earlier order.
Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S Sharrma, appearing for the CBI, argued that Section 216 CrPC empowered the court to alter or add charges at any stage before pronouncement of judgment. He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the recording of evidence had only recently commenced and only formal witnesses had been examined.
The CBI also relied on the Delhi High Court’s August 19 order, which had granted liberty to the parties to pursue appropriate remedies before the trial court in accordance with law.
Opposing the application, advocates Nagesh Behl and Vishal Gaurav, appearing for Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, argued that the CBI was seeking to reopen issues that had already been examined and decided by the court in its detailed July 30 order.
The defence contended that the application was not seeking correction of any clerical or typographical error but amounted to a substantive reconsideration of the earlier findings. They argued that the CBI’s disagreement with a judicial decision could not be treated as an inadvertent mistake and that the agency was attempting to review the order under the guise of Section 216 CrPC.
Their side further opposed the proposed additional charges, submitting that the CBI had not brought any new evidence on record and that the proposed charge under Section 467 IPC had neither been included in the charge-sheet nor pressed during arguments on framing of charges.
The defence also argued that the concept of a continuing conspiracy could not automatically make every accused liable for every offence allegedly committed in the case. They further submitted that the Delhi High Court had not granted the CBI liberty to reopen the entire order on charges against all accused persons.
Advocate Hemant Shah, appearing for Ajay Nawandar, specifically argued that the CBI’s application was not a request for mere clarification or correction of a clerical omission but sought a substantive reopening of issues that had already been extensively argued and adjudicated upon in the July 30 order.
He submitted that Section 216 CrPC was an enabling provision empowering the court to correct a genuine omission or alter or add charges on the basis of material that may emerge during evidence, but it did not provide a remedy to a party dissatisfied with the court’s order on charge.
Shah further argued that the criminal court had no inherent power to review or recall its own order and that Section 362 CrPC permitted only correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. He contended that the CBI was effectively seeking a substantive rewriting of the earlier findings, which was impermissible.
The defence also argued that the High Court had not granted the CBI liberty to reopen the order on charges against all accused and that the agency could not seek to improve its case by introducing offences that had not been pressed during the earlier hearing.
Rejecting the CBI’s requests for additional charges, the court observed that it had specifically held in its July 30 order that the offence under Section 409 IPC was not attracted against Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan.
It further noted that there was no material or witness statement to establish the ingredients of offences under Sections 206 and 424 IPC against the Wadhawan brothers or Nawandar.
The court also observed that charges relating to criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC had already been framed against individual accused persons after considering the overall effect of the material produced by the prosecution.
It held that it could not review its own order except to the limited extent of correcting clerical or typographical errors. The court found no such inadvertent errors in the CBI’s prayers seeking additional charges under Sections 409 and 467 IPC, the related conspiracy charges and the proposed omnibus conspiracy charge against all accused.
The court, however, allowed the CBI’s application to the limited extent of correcting two inadvertent typographical errors in its July 30 order concerning Nawandar.
The first correction related to paragraph 323, where the word “prima facie” had inadvertently been included while recording the court’s finding that no material existed to attract certain substantive offences against him. (ANI)
The second correction concerned paragraph 324, which dealt with allegations that Nawandar had facilitated the Wadhawan brothers in preparing an allegedly forged memorandum of understanding (MoU) as part of a conspiracy to divert funds belonging to the consortium banks.
The court clarified that the relevant conspiracy charge against Nawandar was under Section 120B read with Section 468 IPC and not Section 120B read with Section 465 IPC, as inadvertently mentioned in the earlier order.
It accordingly directed that paragraphs 323 and 324 of its July 30 order be read with the corrected wording. The court clarified that its observations in paragraph 323 concerned substantive offences, whereas paragraph 324 related to the criminal conspiracy charge against Nawandar.
The Supreme Court had granted bail to the Wadhawan brothers in December 2025, observing that the case was based on documentary evidence and that even if the trial proceeded on a day-to-day basis, its conclusion was unlikely within two to three years.
The trial will now proceed on the charges already framed by the special court. The Supreme Court, in its 2024 judgment in K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, had held that an order rejecting an application seeking modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC is interlocutory in nature and a revision petition against such an order is not maintainable under Section 397(2) CrPC. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)