The Rouse Avenue special court accepted the CBI’s closure report on January 23, 2025, in a 2017 case involving allegations over an ICICI Bank loan to RRPR Holding and related conduct by former NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy. The court said it found no criminality or violation of Section 19(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, by the accused. The allegations in the case record were not findings of guilt.
What the 2017 case alleged
The case began with a complaint by Sanjay Dutt of Quantum Security Pvt. Ltd. It alleged that, in 2008–09, Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy and RRPR Holding acted in concert around an open offer for NDTV shares and conspired with ICICI Bank officials.
According to the allegations recorded in the court order, ICICI advanced RRPR a ₹375 crore loan against promoter shares as collateral and later reduced the interest rate. The complaint alleged that the rate change caused a ₹48 crore loss to the bank and a corresponding gain to the accused. These amounts describe the complaint’s allegations, not amounts the court found to have been lost or gained through criminal conduct. Rouse Avenue Court order
Why the CBI recommended closure
The CBI’s closure report concluded that it found no criminality or violation of Section 19(2) of the Banking Regulation Act. The report, as recounted in the court order, described ICICI committees’ decisions concerning the debt-service reserve, penal interest and loan prepayment. It also said interest rates were reduced in 83 loan accounts during the relevant financial years, and that the rate reduction and acceptance of RRPR’s repayment proposal were not isolated events.
The court order records the CBI’s conclusion that there was no collusion, criminal conspiracy or abuse of official position by public servants or ICICI officers. The 83-account figure is the CBI’s reported finding in the order; it is not a separate court determination about every account. Rouse Avenue Court order
How the court accepted the closure report
On January 7, 2025, complainant Sanjay Dutt told the court he did not wish to file a protest petition because he was satisfied with the CBI investigation. On January 23, the special court considered the closure report and supporting documents, the prosecutor’s submissions and the complainant’s statement, then accepted the report.
Rank #2
Special Judge Shailender Malik wrote: “Therefore closure report appears to be satisfactory and hence it is accepted.” The court’s operative conclusion was that no criminality or violation of Section 19(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 had been found against any accused. That describes the court’s reason for accepting this report; it does not mean the court adjudicated every allegation or every other matter involving NDTV or the Roys. Rouse Avenue Court order, January 23, 2025 Complainant’s statement
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the separate 2019 CBI case differs
A March 20, 2026 Delhi High Court judgment concerned look-out circulars (LOCs) connected to a separate CBI case registered on August 19, 2019. It noted that the 2017 case had already resulted in a closure report accepted by the trial court on January 23, 2025. The High Court did not rule on the merits of that 2017 case.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
The High Court quashed the LOCs in the separate matter subject to Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy giving undertakings to appear when required, cooperate with proceedings and investigations, and provide requested material in their possession or control. Its decision addressed the continuing travel restraint in light of the investigation’s duration, the absence of a chargesheet in that separate case, and the record before it concerning cooperation and flight risk. Delhi High Court judgment, March 20, 2026
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
