Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 23 - HC - Companies LawValidity of Investigation proceedings against the Employee by CID - Investigation was already being conducted by the SFIO - Legality and validity of the criminal proceedings - appropriate forum - prime contention raised in the present petition is whether the investigation can be carried out by the CID, in respect of the offences, alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner, whereas, she is an employee under the group of companies and whether the investigation of such offences can only be conducted by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)? HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the petitioner, herein, was working as an employee under the informant/Company and her personal conduct as an employee, has been challenged and the prime allegation is that while performing her duty, she has falsified the accounts by forging the documents, misappropriated the money of the informant/ Company and forged large number of documents of the Company, while withdrawing money from the Company’s bank account and also received cash amount totaling ₹ 1,14,05,419 etc. etc. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner with conspiracy with other co-employee(s) and accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 120(B)/408/420/467/477AIPC, and all such offences alleged to have been done in personal capacity and none of the offence will come under the purview of Section 447 (fraud) as defined under the Companies Act, 2013. The SFIO undertook the investigation of serious fraud under the Companies Act, 2013 into the affairs of the company as entrusted by the Central Government, not at the behest of a private person. A specific procedure has been laid down under the Companies Act, 2013, for launching prosecution under the Act and how the investigation is to be carried out and SFIO has no role and scope to enquire into the offences committed by an individual under the Company. The object of establishment of SFIO clearly indicates its functions, scope and ambit, which is much broader than inquiry of a private individual. There appears no illegality in registering the case by the CID and the provision under Section 212 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (which has already been mentioned above) has not denuded the investigation carried by any other agency, apart from SFIO. As has been contended in the present petition that there being alternative recourse to investigate into the affairs of the Company by the SFIO, the CID has no jurisdiction to try the offence, will hold no good - petition dismissed.
|