Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Experion Developers in EOW FIR Case, Declines to Stay Probe

The Delhi High Court has declined to grant interim relief to Experion Developers Pvt Ltd and its co-petitioner in their plea seeking quashing of FIR number 64 of 2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, who heard the matter, made it clear that the Court was not inclined to stay the investigation at this preliminary stage. Observing that the case was still in its early phase, the Court held that it would be inappropriate to interfere without first hearing all parties in detail. It accordingly directed that a status report be filed within four weeks.

The Court also refused to grant any protection against coercive action, effectively denying the petitioners relief akin to anticipatory bail. While doing so, it clarified that the pendency of the present petition would not preclude the petitioners from pursuing appropriate remedies in accordance with law. This observation, however, did not confer any substantive protection from arrest or further investigative steps.

The FIR stems from allegations surrounding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Dignity Buildcon Pvt Ltd, which owns approximately 9.32 acres of land in Gurugram’s Sector 62 on Golf Course Extension Road. The property has reportedly been valued at over Rs 630 crore, making it a significant asset at the centre of the dispute.

The Directorate of Enforcement is currently examining whether the resolution process was manipulated to facilitate acquisition of this high value asset at a fraction of its market worth. According to submissions made before the Court, Experion Developers, as the successful resolution applicant, is alleged to have acquired the corporate debtor for a nominal consideration of Re. 1 along with Rs 47 crore in non-convertible debentures.

Investigators have further alleged that a circular financial structure involving approximately Rs 445 crore was routed through related entities, effectively reducing the real economic burden on the acquiring group. This has raised concerns about whether the insolvency framework was misused to enable an undervalued acquisition.

During the hearing, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate informed the Court that the FIR is recent and that the investigation is actively underway. It was also submitted that the agency has already approached the appropriate forum seeking recall of the resolution process, although notice on that application is yet to be issued.

On the other hand, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced several preliminary objections. It was argued that the Enforcement Directorate lacked authority to initiate or trigger the registration of an FIR. The petitioners also contended that a concluded insolvency resolution process cannot be reopened as a matter of law and that the FIR, on its face, does not disclose any cognisable offence.

The Court, however, was not persuaded to grant interim relief on these grounds at this stage. It chose not to examine the merits of these arguments in detail without a full hearing, thereby refusing to stay the investigation.

The petitioners also alleged that the probe was motivated and initiated at the instance of competing business interests. However, the Court did not make any adverse observations regarding the conduct of the investigating agency and instead indicated that the matter required comprehensive consideration.

By directing the filing of a status report and scheduling further proceedings, the Court signalled that the issues raised would be examined in depth at a later stage. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on May 14, 2026.

The order underscores judicial restraint in interfering with ongoing investigations, particularly at an early stage, while leaving open the possibility for the petitioners to seek relief through appropriate legal avenues.

With Inputs From: The Pioneer