Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Hari Sankaran, was arrested by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on 1 April 2019 for an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 in connection with IL&FS Financial Services Limited (IFIN). After his arrest, he was remanded to custody. On 28 May 2019, SFIO submitted a report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), and on 29 May 2019, MCA issued a sanction letter under Section 212(14) of the Companies Act directing SFIO to file a complaint before the Special Court by 30 May 2019. Pursuant to this, SFIO filed Criminal Complaint No.20/2019 on 30 May 2019. The applicant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.5263/2019) seeking quashing of the MCA direction, the complaint, and the prosecution, which was pending. Subsequently, the applicant filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the remand orders passed by the learned Special Judge after filing of the complaint, on the ground that the Special Court had not taken cognizance of the complaint, and therefore his detention was illegal. He also sought his release from alleged illegal detention. The respondent-SFIO opposed the application, arguing that the remand orders were valid and that the applicant had an alternative remedy. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and the scheme of remand, and held that remand orders are interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the filing of the complaint. The court further held that cognizance is not a prerequisite for remand, and the validity of remand orders does not depend on the court having taken cognizance. The court also rejected the challenge to the MCA sanction and the complaint, noting that the complaint was validly filed under Section 212(14) of the Companies Act. The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's remedy, if any, lies in challenging the remand orders before the appropriate forum, and not by way of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Remand Orders - Interlocutory Orders - Section 167 Cr.P.C. - Remand orders passed by a Special Judge under Section 167 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the filing of the complaint. The court held that the validity of remand orders is not dependent on the court having taken cognizance of the complaint, and such orders are not amenable to quashing at the instance of the accused. (Paras 1-26) B) Companies Act - SFIO Complaint - Sanction under Section 212(14) - Section 212(14) Companies Act, 2013 - The MCA's sanction under Section 212(14) directing SFIO to file a complaint is a valid exercise of power, and the complaint filed pursuant thereto is maintainable. The court rejected the challenge to the sanction and the complaint. (Paras 2-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Remand Orders - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The applicant sought quashing of remand orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Special Court had not taken cognizance. The court held that the remedy, if any, lies in challenging the remand orders before the appropriate forum, and not by way of quashing the complaint or the remand orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 1-26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the remand orders passed by the Special Judge after filing of the complaint by SFIO are illegal on the ground that the Special Court had not taken cognizance of the complaint, and whether the applicant is entitled to be released from alleged illegal detention.
Final Decision
The application is dismissed. The court held that the remand orders are interlocutory and cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after filing of the complaint. The applicant's remedy, if any, lies in challenging the remand orders before the appropriate forum.
Law Points
- Remand orders under Section 167 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory
- not subject to revision or quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- cognizance is not a prerequisite for remand
- SFIO complaint validly filed under Section 212(14) Companies Act
- 2013
