RANVEER SINGH V/S SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, 2023

Spread the love

Post Views: 405

RANVEER SINGH V/S SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, 2023

CITATION	2023 SCC OnLine Del 5234
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22^nd AUGUST, 2023
COURT	DELHI HIGH COURT
APPELLANT	RANVEER SINGH
RESPONDENT	SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
BENCH	AMIT BANSAL

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Ranveer Singh v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2023” revolves around a legal dispute regarding investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation office on an issue of illegal mining and laundering of funds. The case before the Delhi High Court is against the order by the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwaraka Courts, Delhi dismissing the petitioners application for a copy of the investigation report of the SFIO. This case focuses on the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the role of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in investigating into companies. The judgment in this case sheds light on the interpretation and application of the term “any person concerned” with reference to the investigation as per the provisions of the Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2015, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court for an investigation against Mahommad Iqbal and his associates for illegal mining and laundering of funds. The Supreme Court, by an order in 2017, disposed of this petition after the Serious Fraud Investigation Office stated that the government had sanctioned prosecution against the aforementioned accused persons. SFIO filed a criminal complaint against the accused persons before the Special Judge (Companies Act). The petitioner filed an application to obtain a copy of the investigation report by SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. The application was dismissed by the Apex Court stating that the petitioner had no locus standi to ask for a copy of the investigation report on 30^th July, 2019. The petitioner filed another application seeking a copy of the investigation report which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 14^th February, 2020. The present case is against the aforementioned order.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the petitioner fits the criterion of “any person concerned” as per Section 212, sub-section (13) of the Companies Act, 2013?

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

The petitioner contended that the order dated 30^th July 2019 was passed in his absence and the counsel who appeared on the said date was not authorized to appear on behalf of the petitioner.
The order does not take into account Section 212 (13) of the Companies Act, 2013 which permits “any person concerned” to obtain copy of the entire investigation report.
The impugned order dated 14^th February, 2020 was passed only on the basis of the earlier order passed by the Special Court.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

The petitioner hasn’t filed any criminal complaint against the accused persons despite claiming to have additional documents in possession.
On examination on oath by the SFIO, the petitioner stated that he didn’t have possession of any additional documents or information and everything had already been filed with the SFIO.
The petitioner has no locus standi to demand the investigation report as he is neither a complainant nor the accused party. He has also not claimed to be a victim of the offences and therefore cannot be said to be “any person concerned” under Section 212 (13) of the Companies Act, 2013.

LEGAL PROVISION

The concerned legal provision in this case is Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013:

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;

(d) on request from any Department of the Central Government or a State Government, the Central Government may, by order, assign the investigation into the affairs of the said company to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and its Director, may designate such number of inspectors, as he may consider necessary for the purpose of such investigation.

(12) On completion of the investigation, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall submit the investigation report to the Central Government.

(13) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned by making an application in this regard to the court.

JUDGEMENT

The Delhi High Court, after careful consideration of the aforesaid provisions, ruled that an investigation by SFIO can be ordered by the Central Government only on the basis of the conditions laid out under sub-sections (1) (a) to (d) of the Section 212, Companies Act, 2013. Consequently, the investigation by SFIO cannot be on the basis of a private complaint. The Court noted that once the government had sanctioned prosecution against the accused, the role of the petitioner had come to an end by cause of not being neither a complainant, nor an accused nor a victim. The petitioner had also contradicted itself by initially claiming the possession of additional information and documents and later denying the claim upon examination by SFIO. The investigation report by SFIO, sought by the petitioner, would contain documents of private and confidential nature which cannot be provided to any person without clear locus. The Delhi High Court ruled that the petitioner is not covered by the expression “any person concerned” under the relevant provision and thus has no right to seek the investigation report. It found no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Special Court which required interference. Thus, the case was dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Serious Fraud Investigation Organization: The Serious Fraud Investigation Organization has been established as per the Companies Act, 2013 by the Government of India. It is a multidisciplinary organization functioning under the supervision of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs consisting of experts in fields such as accountancy, forensic auditing, company law, capital market, taxation, etc for detecting and prosecuting or recommending for prosecution white collar crimes/frauds. The manner in which the investigation is to be carried out is laid out in Section 212, Companies Act, 2013.
Interpretation of Statute: Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 clearly states that – a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned. The judgement in this case identifies the complainant, accused and victim as concerned persons with regard to this section.
Locus Standi: Locus Standi is a Latin term meaning ‘place of standing’. In law, locus standi is the ability of a party to prove connection to or harm caused from the law or action challenged to demonstrate sufficient cause to bring action. In this case, the petitioner failed to show sufficient connection to the investigation being neither the complainant nor the accused nor the victim and thus did not fulfil the criterion of “any person concerned” to have just cause to seek the report.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case of Ranveer Singh v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, underscores the importance of having locus standi to bring legal action against any law or action. Due to the lack of any strong connection to the investigation by SFIO, the petitioner was not entitled to have access to any of the confidential information that may have been revealed over the course of the investigation. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in this case clearly defined the criterion to fulfil the locus standi for seeking a copy of investigation report by SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Astha Samal, student of National Law University Odisha; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.