Ranveer Singh vs SFIO
CRL.REV.P. 99/2021, CRL.M.A. 22454/2022
Facts:
1.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 fund.
2.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.
3.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. 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. 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filed another application on 3rd September, 2019 seeking a copy of the investigation report which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14th February, 2020.
Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to copy of complaint filed by SFIO?
Grounds by Petitioner:
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. 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.
2.The impugned order dated 14th February, 2020 was passed only on the basis of the earlier order passed by the Special Court.
Grounds by Respondent:
1.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. 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.
Decision: High Court held that petitioner is not entitled to copy of complaint filed by SFIO.
Rationale:
1.Hon’ble Court noted that The perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that an investigation by SFIO can be ordered by the Central Government only on the basis of events/scenarios described under sub-sections (1) (a) to (d) of the Section 212, Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the investigation carried out by the SFIO cannot be the basis of a private complaint.
2.The petitioner in the present case had filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court in which various orders were passed. However, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16th August, 2017 taking note of the fact that the government had sanctioned prosecution against the accused. After passing of the aforesaid order, the role of the petitioner came to an end. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a complainant, nor an accused, nor a victim.
3.Petitioner would not be covered by the expression “any person concerned” used in sub-section (13) of the Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, which requires interference by this court.
Order Copy:
