Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Ranveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 99 of 2021, Cr.M.A. 22454 of 2022 (delay 134 days in
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Companies Act - Investigation by SFIO - Section 212(13) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, which details the manner of investigation to be carried out by SFIO. The court highlighted that the investigation by SFIO can only be ordered by the Central Government based on specific events/scenarios described under sub-sections (1)(a) to (d) of Section 212. The court emphasized that the investigation report by SFIO contains private and confidential documents pertaining to the accused, and therefore, the provision allowing 'any person concerned' to obtain a copy of the investigation report requires a clear establishment of locus. The court concluded that the petitioner did not fall under the expression 'any person concerned' and upheld the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court seeking an investigation against certain individuals for illegal mining and laundering of funds. The petitioner later sought a copy of the investigation report under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013, which was dismissed by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have the necessary locus to seek the investigation report as the petitioner was neither a complainant, nor an accused, nor a victim. The court also noted that the investigation report contained private and confidential documents pertaining to the accused, and therefore, the provision allowing 'any person concerned' to obtain a copy of the investigation report required a clear establishment of locus.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's locus to seek the investigation report under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the interpretation of the expression 'any person concerned' in the context of the investigation by SFIO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not fall under the expression 'any person concerned' as used in Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013, and therefore, upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's application for a copy of the investigation report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner impugning the orders dated 30th July, 2019 and 14th February, 2020 passed by the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being W.P. 818/2015 praying for an investigation against one, Mahommad Iqbal and his associates for illegally mining and laundering of funds.
2.2. The aforesaid petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16th August, 2017 after recording the statement on behalf of the respondent, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) that the government has sanctioned prosecution against the accused persons.
2.3. SFIO filed criminal complaint no. 720/2017 before the Special Judge (Companies Act) against accused persons.
2.4. The petitioner filed an application dated 21st February, 2019 before the Special Judge under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013 to obtain a copy of the investigation report.
2.5. The aforesaid application of the petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 30th July, 2019 on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to ask for a copy of the investigation report.
2.6. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application on 3rd September, 2019 seeking a copy of the investigation report which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14th February, 2020.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the aforesaid order on the following grounds:
3.1. The order dated 30th July, 2019 was passed in the absence of the petitioner. The counsel who appeared on the said date was never authorized to appear on behalf of the petitioner.
3.2. The order dated 30th September, 2019 does not take cognizance of Section 212 (13) of the Companies Act, 2013 which permits "any person concerned" to obtain copy of the entire investigation report.
3.3. The impugned order dated 14th February, 2020 was passed only on the basis of the earlier order passed by the Special Court.
4. A short affidavit dated 6th July, 2021 has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated as under:
4.1. The petitioner has not filed any criminal complaint against the accused persons despite claiming to have additional documents in his possession.
4.2. The petitioner was summoned by the SFIO and examined on oath during the investigation wherein the petitioner stated that he had no new information/documents in his possession or knowledge and all the documents in his possession have already been filed with SFIO.
4.3. The petitioner has no locus standi to seek the investigation report as the petitioner is neither a complainant nor an accused party in any way. He has not claimed to be a victim of the offences committed by the accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be "any person concerned" under Section 212 (13) of the Companies Act, 2013.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. SFIO is a specialized agency investigating into allegations of serious fraud offences of a company. Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 is a self-contained code detailing the manner of investigation to be carried out by SFIO. The relevant provisions of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 are referred.
"212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office.--(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 210, where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office-
(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector under section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a company that its affairs are required to be investigated;
(c) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any Department of the Central
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provision allowing 'any person concerned' to obtain a copy of the investigation report under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013....
Court confirms that the assignment of investigation to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under Section 212 can occur regardless of ongoing inquiries under Section 210, without violating principl....
The formation of an opinion under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 must be demonstrably based on established circumstances, failing which the investigation order is invalid.
Strangers to legal proceedings must substantiate their purpose for obtaining certified copies; courts require clarity and reasons for issuing such documents.
The absence of any outer limit for investigation under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not preclude the application of the principles of equity and natural justice, which demand that the ....
Investigation into affairs of company – Statute does not contain any specific prescription of time and reference to completion of investigation within a stipulated period is directory and not mandato....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
