$~13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010167532023 + CONT.CAS(C) 582/2023 & CM APPL. 43418/2023 MADHYA BHARAT PAPERS LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Niyazuddin, Advocates (M:9015975483) versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH DISTRICT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Braj Prakash, SI. PS- Malviya Nagar (M:9810020341) # CNR No. DLHC010407582023 + CONT.CAS(C) 1483/2023 MADHYA BHARAT PAPERS LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Niyazuddin, Advocates (M:9015975483) versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH DISTRICT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Braj Prakash, SI. PS- Malviya Nagar (M:9810020341) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. CONT.CAS(C) 582/2023 has been filed for compliance of the Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.08.2026 10:12:54 Signature Not Verified judgment dated 12th November, 2013, and 05th March, 2014, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Versus Govt. of U.P., wherein, it was held that a preliminary inquiry initiated on any complaint made to the police ought to be concluded within 15 days in normal cases, and 06 weeks by giving adequate reasons in exceptional cases, resulting in either registration of First Information Report (“FIR”) or complaint being closed. After the aforesaid procedure is complete, communication has to be given to the complainant regardless of the outcome. 2. The contempt petition, being CONT.CAS(C) 582/2023 was filed since despite the complaint of the petitioner, neither any communication was given to the petitioner as regards the progress in the complaint, nor any FIR was lodged. 3. CONT.CAS(C) 1483/2023 has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 29th May, 2023, wherein, it was noted as follows: 4. By referring to the aforesaid order, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the response of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai Branch, and the legal opinion of the Chief Prosecutor has not been placed on record till date, despite statement on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent to Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.08.2026 10:12:54 Signature Not Verified place the said documents on record. 5. In response, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that no response has been received from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai Branch, on account of which, the same has not been brought on record. 6. As far as the legal opinion of the Chief Prosecutor is concerned, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that an FIR pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner already stands lodged. Further, the charge sheet also stands filed. 7. Accordingly, since the FIR already stands lodged, and chargesheet with regard thereto already stands filed, there is no occasion or requirement for placing on record any legal opinion of the Chief Prosecutor, as mentioned in the order dated 29th May, 2023. 8. This Court also notes the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai Branch has not responded, and is not cooperating in the investigation carried out by the respondent. 9. If that be the case, the Police has its own statutory authority in order to carry out requisite investigation in a case. 10. Accordingly, the respondent-police is directed to carry out investigation on the complaint of the petitioner, as per the procedure in exercise of the authority as vested in it. 11. Noting the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 11, 2026/au By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.08.2026 10:12:54