IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
R. K. Gupta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India Through Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) 1891 of 2023 CRL.M.A. 17499 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks the following prayers:
i. Quash/set aside the Investigation Report dated 06.05.2022 submitted by respondent no. 2/Serious Fraud Investigation Office titled 'Investigation Report of Bhushan Power & Steel Limited & Others' and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
ii. Quash/set aside sanction letter dated 19.05.2022, i.e., F.No. LEGAL-35/15/2022 issued by respondent no. 1/Ministry of Corporate Affairs granting sanction to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office for initiating Prosecution.
iii. Quash the complaint dated 19.05.2022 filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 03 and Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka District Courts, Delhi.
iv. Set aside summoning order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 374/2022 titled 'SFIO v. Bhushan Airways Services Private Limited and Others'.
v. Restrain the Serious Fraud Investigation Office from carrying out any further investigation into the affairs of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. ('BPSL') and Others under order F.No. 5/5/2016-CL-II dated 03.05.2016 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Background
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are as under:
i. Respondent no. 1/Ministry of Corporate Affairs ('MCA'), in exercise of powers under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 ('the Act'), vide F.No. 5/5/2016-CL-II dated 03.05.2016 ordered an investigation into the affairs of 15 companies named in the said order.
ii. Vide orders dated 12.05.2016, 30.08.2019, 31.12.2020 and 28.10.2021, respondent no. 2/Serious Fraud Investigation Office ('SFIO'), appointed/notified a team of inspectors to carry out the investigation.
iii. During the course of investigation, in view of the order dated 03.05.2016, the SFIO, vide its letter dated 27.12.2017 sought approval for investigation into the affairs of 20 additional companies, in terms of Section 219(c) of the Act. In addition to the above, the SFIO also sought approval to investigate the affairs of 46 other companies.
iv. On 08.01.2018, the MCA, authorized inspectors of the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of all the aforesaid 66 companies, as sought by the SFIO.
v. On 06.05.2022, the SFIO submitted its Investigation Report under Section 212(12) of the Act titled 'Investigation Report of Bhushan Power & Steel Limited & Others'.
vi. On 19.05.2022, the MCA issued a sanction letter, directing the SFIO to initiate prosecution against the petitioners for commission of offences under the Act.
vii. On the same day, i.e., on 19.05.2022, the SFIO filed a complaint, i.e., CC No. 374/2022 titled 'Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Bhushan Airways Services Pvt. Ltd.' before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 03 and Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka District Courts, Delhi.
viii. In the said complaint, petitioner no. 1/R.K. Gupta was arrayed as accused no. 45 for commission of offences under Sections 447, 36(c), 448 read with Sections 447 and 129 of the Companies Act; Sections 417, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 211 read with Section 628 of the Companies Act. Petitioner no. 2/Silver-Star Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. was arrayed as accused no. 34 for commission of offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act. Petitioner no. 3/Decor Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. was arrayed as accused no. 13 for commission of offences under Sections 417, 420, 120B of the IPC and Section 447 of the Companies Act.
ix. On 20.09.2022, the learned Special Judge took cognizance on the aforesaid complaint and issued summons to the petitioners.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
No Jurisdiction
Ashim Maitra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
B. Shankara Rao Badami and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Anr.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and Anr.
Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Ors.
M/s Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Ashok Kumar Das v. University of Burdwan
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh and Anr.
Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Band & Ors.
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna
State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors.
Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.N.S. Karayogam and Anr.
C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran and Ors.
Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam and Ors.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Yusofalli Mulla v. King Emperor
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office has the authority to investigate under the Companies Act without prior approval under Section 219, and it may also investigate offences under the IPC as per the....
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 police have jurisdiction to investigate IPC offenses connected to company affairs despite provisions under the Companies Act; acts constituting fraud must relate to actions after the Act's enactm....
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....
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.
The court ruled that serious allegations of corporate malfeasance necessitate thorough investigation despite initial closure due to insufficient evidence, asserting the scope of further investigation....
The court affirmed the necessity of obtaining prior approval for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring timely and proper inquiries without undue influence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.