Maintain status quo regarding proceedings on Serious Fraud Investigation Office report against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd, orders Kerala high court

Kochi: Kerala high court on Wednesday ordered that status quo be maintained for two months regarding the proceedings based on the report filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL), a Kochi-based company accused of financial fraud.

The bench of Justice T R Ravi was hearing a petition filed by CMRL challenging the order of the special court that took cognisance of the report filed by the SFIO, in which T Veena, daughter of chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, was also named as an accused. The bench adjourned the matter for further consideration on May 23 and directed the central govt to file a counter-affidavit.

Earlier, the SFIO had submitted its complaint (report) before the special court under the Companies Act. Referring to Section 212(15) of the Act, the court observed that the report shall be treated as a police report. Upon examining the report, materials, and accompanying documents, the court found sufficient grounds to take cognisance of the offences and issued process against all the accused for violations of Sections 129 and 134, and for offences under Sections 447 (punishment for fraud) and 448 (punishment for making false statements) read with Section 447 of the Companies Act.

In its petition, CMRL contended that it had not been afforded an opportunity for a pre-cognisance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that the BNSS was applicable as the complaint was filed in March-April 2025.

Meanwhile, A R L Sundaresan, the additional solicitor general appearing for the central govt and the SFIO, countered that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) would prevail since the BNSS came into force only on July 1, 2024, and the investigation had commenced before that date. The petitioner opposed this argument, submitting that the special court's decision to take cognisance was contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court and various high courts regarding the applicability of the BNSS. Additionally, they challenged the special court's decision, which relied on Section 212(15) of the Companies Act to treat the SFIO's complaint in the same manner as a police report.

By an order dated April 11, the special court listed Sasidharan Kartha, his son Saran Kartha, T Veena, and their respective firms as accused in the case. Veena was arrayed as an accused for allegedly receiving Rs 2.73 crore from the company without rendering any service. Sasidharan Kartha was named in two cases — one involving alleged fraudulent transactions worth Rs 182 crore and another concerning an alleged commission payment of Rs 13 crore to Anil Ananda Panicker.