new delhi a special court on monday directed a senior officer of the economic offences wing eow to supervise the probe in a case involving directors of real estate major amr infrastructure ltd accused of duping 200 investors of crores of rupeesit said that keeping in view the gravity of the offence and its impact on the number of investors it would be appropriate that the case be investigated by a senior officerthe matter should be supervised by the deputy commissioner of police concerned of the eowspecial judge kamini laus direction came during the hearing of a bail plea of one of the arrested directors of the real estate firmaccording to the complainants they were induced in 2006 to invest in the project located in greater noida and the firm had also assured returns on the investments the project in dispute included a mall and a residential areaduring the proceedings the court was informed by the counsel for the accused director and complainants that they were in the process of finalising a settlementadvocate ajay verma appearing for accused director ram chander soni sought bail saying it was purely a civil dispute and that he was willing to settle the issue and ensure that the entire project was delivered to the buyersthe complainants counsel told the court that the total amount involved was crores of rupeesthe court in its oral observation made it clear that it was not inclined to grant bail to the director till the time he returned the money of all the investorskeeping in view the gravity of the offence and the extent and impact on the number of investors who have come to the court and also those who have approached various other forums including the delhi high court in company petitions it is proper that the investigation in this case be entrusted to some senior officer to be duly supervised by the dcp himself it saidthe judge was also informed by dcp eow p k mishra that a lookout circular had been issued against other absconding directors of the firm and the agency was in the process of collecting the details of their attachable assetsthe court directed that the details of the assets of the directors and the company be placed before the court on august 28 the next date of the hearingit also asked the dcp as to why a single fir had been registered on the 200 complaints of investors each one being a separate transaction when as per law only three complaints could be clubbed in one firto this the dcp assured the court that in case there was no settlement between the investors and the builder charge sheets would be filed separately by not clubbing more than three complaintsthe investigating officer io in a report said that till 2008 there was no construction activity at the site and when the complainants confronted the company officials they were informed that possession would be given by the end of 2010 but they had not