SFIO Corporate Fraud Complaints Are Not Ordinary Complaint Cases; Section 223 BNSS Hearing Not Required: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: VIVO India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India
Date of Judgment: 07 July 2026
Citation:CRM-M-10158-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that prosecution complaints instituted by the SFIO after investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 are not governed by the proviso to Section 223 BNSS. A proposed accused has no vested right to claim a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court in such SFIO prosecutions.
Summary: The petitioner, VIVO India Private Limited, approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking to set aside the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby its application seeking a pre-cognizance hearing under the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS was dismissed.
The SFIO had filed a complaint before the Special Court in relation to alleged offences under Sections 447, 7(5), 7(6) and 449 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner argued that since the filing was termed as a “complaint”, and since Section 438 of the Companies Act makes the criminal procedure applicable before Special Courts, the safeguard under Section 223 BNSS must apply.
The Court rejected this contention. It held that the Companies Act, 2013 provides a special and self-contained procedural framework for investigation, prosecution, cognizance and trial of corporate fraud offences. The Court noted that an SFIO investigation report, by virtue of Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, is treated as a police report, and such prosecutions cannot be equated with ordinary private complaints.
The Court further observed that SFIO prosecutions are launched only after statutory investigation, participation of concerned persons during inquiry, and scrutiny by the MCA/Central Government. Therefore, importing a pre-cognizance hearing requirement under Section 223 BNSS would frustrate the special statutory scheme of the Companies Act and delay proceedings involving serious corporate fraud allegations.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, holding that it did not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.