$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2714/2025 SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS .....Petitioner Through: versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya ASC for the State along with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.08.2025 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks the following reliefs: “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in connection with "CS (OS) 470/2019", W\.P. (C) 2902/2025, and W\.P. (Crl.) 10990/2025 , the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a) **Issue a writ of Mandamus**, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to expeditiously conclude the investigation under the provisions of the " Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)", and to take strict legal action on the Petitioner's complaint dated 23.05.2025, 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2025 at 12:49:50 in accordance with law, against all persons and entities found culpable; and further to 'submit a comprehensive report' of the investigation and the action taken thereon to Respondent Nos. 1 and 5; b) **Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction** declaring, on the basis of evidence collected and the outcome of the investigation conducted by the competent authorities, that the alleged entity, **'Udayanand'** is a fictitious and fraudulent construct, having no legal or lawful existence; c) **Pass such other or further orders** as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner, a retired CRPF officer, has approached this Court stating that he is associated with the affairs of Raj Vidya Kender (RVK), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He claims to have submitted a complaint dated 23rd May, 2025, to the Directorate of Enforcement, alleging that the society is being unlawfully controlled by an unelected governing body through fictitious persons, including one “Udayanand,” and that misappropriation of funds and money-laundering activities have been carried out. On this basis, he prays for directions to the Enforcement Directorate and Financial Intelligence Unit to act on his complaint and for a declaration that “Udayanand” is fictitious. 3. Insofar as prayer (a) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner has already addressed a complaint dated 23rd May, 2025 to the Enforcement Directorate. Once such a complaint has been lodged, it is for the competent authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to examine the same and to proceed in accordance with law. No direction can be issued by this Court to dictate the manner in which investigation is to be undertaken or to require that the same be concluded This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2025 at 12:49:50 within a particular timeframe, save in exceptional circumstances of proven inaction or malafide, which are not demonstrated here. 4. Insofar as the prayer for a declaration is concerned, the same is clearly premature. Whether or not the entity “Udayanand” is fictitious or otherwise is a matter of fact that can only be determined on the basis of a duly conducted investigation and evidence gathered by the competent authorities. This Court cannot, at the threshold, return such findings in a writ petition. 5. It is also noticed that the pleadings contain allegations levelled by the Petitioner against a sitting judge of this Court in respect of orders passed in related proceedings. Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State further points out that the Petitioner has been engaged in repeated litigations arising from disputes concerning RVK. In earlier proceedings, including writ petitions challenging the professional conduct of advocates and other statutory authorities, similar allegations have been raised. Those petitions were dismissed by this Court, with adverse observations against the Petitioner and costs imposed for suppression of material facts and frivolous filings. The Petitioner’s pattern of re- agitating the same issues across multiple forums has also been noticed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. 6. In these circumstances, intervention of the Court is not warranted. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 28, 2025/MK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2025 at 12:49:50