Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., considered a petition filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 222/2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, and consequential criminal proceedings. The controversy arose because the SFIO and EOW were allegedly investigating overlapping allegations concerning forged documents connected with Educomp Solutions Ltd., the Raffles Group and Learning Leadership Foundation. The SFIO contended that simultaneous investigations into the same documents by different agencies could result in conflicting findings and prejudice its prosecution before the Special Court.
The background involved an investigation initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) through its order dated 17 August 2018 concerning the affairs of Educomp Solutions Ltd. A complaint submitted by Raffles Education Corporation Ltd. was subsequently referred to the SFIO, and the MCA ordered supplementary investigation on 19 December 2022 concerning matters not addressed in the original investigation report. These included issues relating to corporate debt restructuring and non-performing assets. Meanwhile, allegations concerning forged ledgers and other documents had resulted in FIR No. 222/2019 being investigated by the EOW. The SFIO argued that the overlapping subject matter justified judicial intervention and relied upon Ashish Bhalla v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5818, in which proceedings relating to an EOW FIR had been quashed because the SFIO investigation and the FIR concerned the same subject matter.
The complainant opposed the petition, questioning the SFIO’s locus standi to challenge criminal proceedings initiated against other persons. It maintained that the EOW investigation concerned a different set of documents and involved allegations of forgery and extortion punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed upon Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1991) 3 SCC 756, to contend that criminal prosecution ordinarily could be challenged by the concerned accused and not by an unrelated third party. The complainant further argued that Section 212(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerned investigations into offences under that Act and did not automatically displace investigations into offences punishable under other statutes.
After hearing the parties and examining the material placed on record, Justice Amit Sharma observed that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, both agencies were examining the same set of documents. The Court considered whether the investigation by the EOW in the subsequent FIR should continue to be a legal issue requiring examination. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondents, and the complainant was permitted to file its response. The Court did not finally determine the question of the SFIO’s locus standi, the statutory limits of its investigative jurisdiction or the legality of the parallel investigation at this interim stage.
As an interim measure, the Delhi High Court directed that the Trial Court should not proceed further with the chargesheet filed in FIR No. 222/2019 until the next date of hearing. It also directed that the Investigating Officer should not summon officers of the SFIO in connection with that FIR during the same period. The matter was listed for 12 August 2025. The order is significant because it recognises the need for judicial examination where parallel investigations involve the same documents and potentially overlapping allegations. However, the directions were expressly interim in nature, and the Court neither quashed the FIR nor conclusively ruled that the EOW lacked jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Indian Penal Code.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeks the following reliefs:-
“A. Quash FIR No. 222/2019, dated 14.11.2019 registered at PS EOW Central Delhi;
B. Quash the Chargesheet dated 21.03.2022 filed in FIR No. 222/2019, dated 14.11.2019 registered at PS EOW, Central Delhi;
C. Setting the Order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Ld. ACJM-01, Central District, whereby cognizance of the offence was taken;
D. Quash the Supplementary Chargesheet dated 12.08.24 filed in FIR No. 222/2019, dated 14.11.2019 registered at PS EOW, Central Delhi qua Sh. Ashish Harita, the then official of Petitioner;
E. Set aside the Order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Ld. ACJM-01, Central District, whereby cognizance of the offence was taken qua Sh. Ashish Harita, the then official of Petitioner;
F. Set aside Order dated 23.10.24 passed by the Ld. ACJM-01, Central District, whereby further investigation has been directed to be undertaken qua Sh. Harvinder, an official of the Petitioner and further proceedings arising therefrom; and / or
G. Pass necessary orders and directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case and in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioner”
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions submits that the Prayers- ‘D’ and ‘E’ are not being pressed by them as the concerned official, namely, Mr. Ashish Harita has independently challenged the impugned order and the consequential proceedings.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the investigation in the FIR bearing No.222/2019 registered with P.S. Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’) is with respect to certain allegations of forgery of the documents which are also part of the investigation currently undertaken by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’). It is stated that an investigation by the SFIO, in pursuance of the order passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) vide order No.1/52/2017-CL-II dated 17.08.2018, with regard to the affairs of a company by the name of Educomp Solutions Ltd. was being undertaken. It is submitted that on 16.05.2019, a complaint by M/s Raffels Education Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Raffles Group’) was received at PMO which was referred to the SFIO by the MCA on 03.06.2019. It is pointed out that on 19.12.2022, the MCA ordered a supplementary investigation while referring to the issue relating to the Raffels Group which were not addressed in the main investigation report. It is stated that the issue relating to corporate debt restructuring of the Educomp Solutions Ltd. and the NPAs declared by the banks were sought to be brought out in the supplementary investigation.
5. It is submitted that during the aforesaid investigation a complaint dated 25.11.2020 to the Secretary of MCA was given by one of the accused persons, namely, Shantanu Prakash with regard to allegations of furnishing forged documents by the Raffels Group along with the aforesaid complaint. In the said complaint, it was prayed that action under Section 182 of the IPC should be taken against the Raffels Group for submitting the false documents to a public officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject matter of the FIR No. 222/2019 registered with the EOW is also related to certain forged ledgers of several companies including the complainant i.e., respondent No.2/Learning Leadership Foundation.
6. The submissions on behalf of the Department/SFIO is that the present FIR was initiated on behalf of the accused persons against whom a prosecution complaint has been filed by the department. It is pointed out that Shantanu Prakash, who had filed the complaint with the MCA regarding the forged documents was the Managing Director of the Educomp Solutions Ltd. and was also a Managing Trustee of respondent No.2/Trust/Learning Leadership Foundation at one point of time.
7. In this regard, it is submitted that the investigation in respect to the same documents cannot be undertaken by different agencies which may result in different findings and, thereby, affecting the case of the SFIO in the complaint filed in the Special Court.
8. Reliance has been placed upon Ashish Bhalla v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5818, wherein, a learned Single Bench of this Court had quashed the proceedings of an FIR pending with the EOW on account of the fact that the investigation done by the SFIO as well as the FIR related to the same subject matter.
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/complainant submits that the petitioner/department does not have any locus standi to file the present petition. It is submitted that complaint on behalf of the respondent No.2 with EOW relates to a different set of documents which were not part of the investigation report or the complaint filed by the SFIO before the Special Court. It is submitted that the offence relates to forgery as well as extortion which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It has further submitted that the cognizance in the complaint filed by the SFIO has already been taken by the learned Special Court.
10. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1991) 3 SCC 756, to argue that in a criminal case, it is the specified accused person who can raise challenges to the prosecution and not any third party under the garb of the public interest litigant.
11. It is further pointed that as per Section 212(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the jurisdiction of the SFIO with respect to investigation by them as well as transferring of investigation being conducted by any other agency to itself would relate to the offences under Companies Act, 2013 and not other offences which are punishable by way of other statutes.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has handed up a chart in Court, the same is taken on the record, to demonstrate that the subject matter of the documents filed alongwith the complaint filed by the Raffles Group are similar to the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 which is the subject matter of the investigation of FIR No. 222/2019. It is submitted that the investigation qua the said documents is presently ongoing in view of the orders passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs by way of supplementary investigations.
14. The Court has also seen the complaint dated 25.11.2020 filed by Mr. Shantanu Prakash, with MCA, who is stated to be an accused in the SFIO complaint which is pending before the learned Special Court. In the said complaint, it is stated as under:
“29. Being aggrieved with illegal actions of Raffles, I got an FIR being FIR No 222 of 2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi[‘EoW’] under Sections 196, 211, 380, 384, 387, 389, 465, 469, 471, 506, 120B IPCagainst the accused persons namely (i) Mr. Hua Sing Chew, (ji) Mr. Chew Han Wai, (iii) Mr. Saurabh Sharma, (iv) Mr. Cheng Lok Teo, (v) Mr. How Tech Lim, (vi) Mr. Hui Tin Gan and (vii) Mr. Jun He. A copy of the FIR No 222 of 2019 is enclosed herewith as ‘Enclosure-4’
xxx xxx xxx
33. While ESL and myself are facing investigation under companies act assigned to SFIO, there is an FIR registered against the complaint with very serious charges under section Sections 196, 211, 380, 384, 387, 389, 465, 469, 471, 506, 120B IPC where they failed to appear and join the investigation.
34. The investigation by EOW, Delhi is a purely criminal investigation and any findings of SFIO on the basis of forged documents will certainly be highly prejudicial to me and the company.
xxx xxx xxx
15. It is not disputed that aforesaid Shantanu Prakash was at one time, a Managing Trustee for the respondent No.2/complainant as well as its Director. It is submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the said person had resigned by the time the complaint was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 with EOW.
16. It is pertinent to note that in the peculiar facts of the present case both the agencies are examining the same set of the documents. The issue whether the investigation by the EOW in subsequent FIR should continue or not is a legal issue which requires consideration.
17. Issue Notice.
18. Learned APP for the State accepts notice on behalf of the EOW.
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 accepts notice and seeks time to file a response. Let the same be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. In the meantime, learned Trial Court shall not proceed further with the chargesheet filed in the present FIR bearing No. 222/2019 registered at P.S. EOW till the next date of hearing.
21. The concerned Investigating Officer shall not summon the officers of the department in case FIR bearing No. 222/2019 registered at P.S. EOW till the next date of hearing.
22. List on 12.08.2025.
23. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
24. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
