The Supreme Court allowed appeals against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings in cases related to fraudulent activities in the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of Yes Bank Ltd. and Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC). The apex court ruled that the matter should have been heard by a Division Bench as per the High Court's rules. Consequently, the Court remanded the writ petitions back to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for a fresh hearing by a Division Bench, which is to decide the matter independently and expeditiously.

1. Background of the Case:

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered criminal cases in 2006 against multiple accused persons for alleged fraudulent activities during the IPOs of Yes Bank Ltd. and IDFC. The charges included serious offenses such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. High Court Proceedings:

In 2018, the respondent approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the FIRs and chargesheets filed by the CBI. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading the respondent to approach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the respondent to withdraw the petition with the liberty to raise issues before the High Court.

3. Fresh Writ Petitions and Single Judge’s Decision:

The respondent subsequently filed fresh writ petitions in 2020, this time specifically challenging the cognizance orders of the Special CBI Court. The Single Judge quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, particularly in light of a consent order previously passed by SEBI.

4. Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the Single Judge's order and remanded the matter to be heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Court emphasized that the Division Bench should decide the case independently, without being influenced by previous rulings, and requested an expedited hearing within three months.

5. Interim Relief:

The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the criminal proceedings for four weeks, allowing the parties to seek further orders from the Division Bench.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s order ensures that the case will be reconsidered by the appropriate judicial forum, providing both parties with an opportunity for a fair hearing.