An SFIO investigation is assigned by the Central Government under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, once it forms the opinion that a company’s affairs need investigating. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office can then call for books and papers, examine people on oath, seize documents and arrest. Bail for an offence under Section 447 has to clear the twin conditions in Section 212(6). The investigation report goes back to the Central Government, which may direct a prosecution before a Special Court, and Section 212(15) deems that report to be a report filed by a police officer.
This article sets out what an SFIO investigation authorises, how arrest and bail work, what the investigation report becomes, and how the probe is defended.
One change is pending. The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 March 2026 and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee the same day. Clause 99 of that Bill would raise the Section 447 threshold from ten lakh rupees to twenty-five lakh rupees, and it has not been enacted.
Between 1 April 2021 and 31 October 2024 the Central Government assigned 36 cases to SFIO, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ own account in the Lok Sabha. The readers who need this page are usually counsel scoping a live matter, in-house teams that have just received a notice under Section 217(1), and corporate-law students working through the enforcement half of company law.
What triggers an SFIO investigation under Section 212(1)?
An SFIO investigation is triggered when the Central Government forms the opinion that it is necessary to investigate a company’s affairs. It may form that opinion on any of the four occasions listed at clauses (a) to (d) of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, sub-section (1). The order assigning the case to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office is what actually starts the investigation. The Director SFIO then designates as many inspectors as he considers necessary for the purpose.
The sub-section opens “Without prejudice to the provisions of section 210”, which keeps the Section 210 route intact alongside it.
What reaches a company is paper, and it arrives in sequence. A listed power company disclosed on 14 July 2026 that it had received a notice from SFIO directing an investigation into its affairs under Section 212. The notice followed an order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 23 April 2026, and called for information under Section 217(1). Roughly twelve weeks separated the ministry’s order from the notice that landed on the company’s desk.
That company was already inside a corporate insolvency resolution process, admitted by the NCLT Hyderabad Bench-I on 15 May 2026, and the investigation proceeded regardless.
So can a company push itself into an SFIO investigation by passing a special resolution? No. Clause (b) is one of the occasions on which the Central Government may form its opinion, not a self-executing route into an assignment. The clauses describe circumstances; the opinion is the operative act.
Who can order an SFIO investigation, and on what material?
Only the Central Government can order an SFIO investigation, and it does so by an order assigning the case to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. A Department of the Central Government or a State Government can request one under clause (d), but the request is not the assignment. Here are the four occasions Section 212(1) lists:
- Clause (a): a report of the Registrar or an inspector under Section 208 reaches the Central Government.
- Clause (b): a company intimates a special resolution that its affairs are required to be investigated.
- Clause (c): the Central Government considers an investigation necessary in the public interest.
- Clause (d): a Department of the Central Government or a State Government requests an investigation.
The material behind the opinion matters. In Karvy Stock Broking Limited v. Union of India, Telangana High Court, 26 August 2020, the court held that forming an opinion on the need for an SFIO investigation carries a necessary concomitant: the existence of prima facie circumstances. Those circumstances should be demonstrable before the court when questioned. That standard is what makes the assignment order reviewable at all.
Can you challenge the order assigning your company to SFIO?
The assignment order can be challenged, but the attack has to be aimed at the circumstances underlying the Central Government’s opinion rather than at the opinion itself. Satisfaction recorded by the executive is not re-weighed by a writ court, while the existence of material capable of supporting it is a question the court will look at.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court drew that division in Sunair Hotels Limited v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, 7 January 2019. It treated the order directing an investigation as administrative rather than judicial. The Bench recorded that certain defects in the formation of the opinion are justiciable, while declining to substitute its own assessment of the material for the Central Government’s. It then dismissed the appeal and left the investigation order standing, which is itself a fair indication of how far this challenge usually gets.
Read alongside the Karvy prima facie standard, the practical target for a petition is narrow. You aren’t arguing that the Central Government reached the wrong conclusion. You’re arguing that there was nothing before it capable of supporting the conclusion it reached.
One argument that does not work is the existence of an earlier investigation. In Exalogic Solutions Private Limited v. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Karnataka High Court, 16 February 2024, the court held that an investigation already under way under Section 210 does not bar an assignment of the same matter to SFIO under Section 212. Section 212(2) is the safeguard against duplicate proceedings, and Section 210 carries no requirement that the earlier investigation finish first.
Where SFIO came from and how it is staffed
SFIO began as a Government of India resolution of 2 July 2003 and was given statutory footing by a Central Government notification dated 21 July 2015 under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013. The office is headed by a Director. Its own published material describes it as consisting of experts drawn from banking, corporate affairs, taxation, forensic audit, capital market, information technology and law.
The office works out of headquarters at New Delhi with five regional offices, at Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. A Market Research and Analysis Unit was established inside SFIO in August 2009, six years before the statutory framework.
In a reply to Unstarred Question No. 959 in the Lok Sabha on 2 December 2024, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs set out the following figures.
| Metric | Figure | Period |
|---|---|---|
| Cases assigned to SFIO for investigation | 36 | 1 April 2021 to 31 October 2024 |
| Prosecution complaints filed | 41 cases | Last three years |
| Persons proceeded against | 1,135 | Last three years |
| Cases disposed | 54 | Last three years |
| Convictions, including compounding | 25 | Last three years |
A conviction rate can’t honestly be computed from those figures, and you’ll see percentages quoted elsewhere that are simply invented. The 41 complaints, the 54 disposals and the 25 convictions run on three different denominators over overlapping periods, so dividing any one by any other produces a number the reply does not support.
What powers does an SFIO investigation carry over documents, people and premises?
An SFIO investigation carries the inspector’s powers in Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013. That means compelled production of books and papers, examination of any person on oath, and the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Those powers sit with the inspectors the Director SFIO designates in the assignment order.
The reach extends past the company under investigation. Section 217(2) lets an inspector require any other body corporate to furnish information or produce documents necessary for the investigation, which is how group companies, subsidiaries and counterparties get pulled in. Section 217(9) obliges Central and State Government authorities and the police to assist an inspector on request.
There are penalties attached at both ends of the duty to cooperate. Under Section 217(6), a director or officer who disobeys a direction issued by the Registrar or the inspector under that section is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year. The fine is not less than twenty-five thousand rupees and may extend to one lakh rupees. A director or officer convicted under the section is, from the date of conviction, deemed to have vacated his office as such, and on that vacation is disqualified from holding office in any company.
Under Section 217(8), refusal to produce documents or to appear carries imprisonment which may extend to six months. The fine is not less than twenty-five thousand rupees and may extend to one lakh rupees, with a further fine which may extend to two thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the default continues.
Must you produce documents, and how long can SFIO keep them?
Yes. Officers, employees and agents of the company must preserve and produce to an inspector all books and papers relating to the company, and must give the inspector all reasonable assistance, under Section 217(1). The duty runs on preservation as much as production, so destroying or losing material after a notice arrives is itself a problem.
Section 217(3) caps how long the material can stay with the investigators. Documents may not be retained beyond one hundred and eighty days, and the retention can be extended in writing by a further period not exceeding 180 days. That’s the outer limit on the first tranche, not a rolling permission.
A Section 217(1) call in a real matter is framed by categories rather than by named files, so the work is largely one of scope. Keeping a written record of what was produced, when, and in what form is worth the effort, because that record is what answers an allegation of non-production later.
Can an SFIO inspector examine you on oath?
Yes. An inspector may examine any person on oath under Section 217(4), and for an investigation assigned under Section 212 the approval of the Director SFIO is enough. That last point comes from Neeraj Singal v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, 29 August 2018. The court read the proviso to Section 217(4) as making the prior approval of the Director SFIO sufficient where the investigation is one under Section 212.
Alongside the examination power, Section 217(5) gives the inspector the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Those powers run to the discovery and production of documents, summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath, and inspection of any records. Put together, an inspector can compel attendance, compel an answer, and compel production, all without going to a court first.
Section 217(7) then allows notes of an examination to be used in evidence against the person examined. The defence section below takes that up.
Can SFIO search your premises without a court order?
It depends on which provision the officer is using, and the answer differs sharply between the two. Under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 2013 an inspector conducting an investigation can seize books and papers without prior permission from any authority. Under Section 209, a court order from the Special Court has to come first.
| Provision | Who acts | Prior authorisation | Trigger | Custody and return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 209 | The Registrar or an inspector | An order of the Special Court is required before entry, search and seizure | Reasonable ground to believe that books and papers may be destroyed, mutilated, altered, falsified or secreted | Return not later than the one hundred and eightieth day after seizure, and the books may be called for again for a further period not exceeding 180 days by an order in writing |
| Section 220 | An inspector, during an investigation | None. Seizure may be made without prior permission from any authority | Reasonable grounds to believe that books and papers may be destroyed, mutilated, altered, falsified or secreted | Custody until the conclusion of the investigation, then return to the company. The search and seizure provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply mutatis mutandis |
Once an investigation has been assigned, the court-order safeguard in Section 209 stops being the operative route. An inspector who forms the reasonable belief that records are at risk can act on the spot under Section 220.
There is one more limit people reach for, and it does not hold. The assignment order under Section 212(3) fixes a period within which SFIO is to submit its report. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, Supreme Court, 27 March 2019, the Court held that the prescription of that period is purely directory. Its expiry does not end the mandate, and an arrest effected after the stipulated period is not illegal on that ground alone.
How does an SFIO arrest work, and can you get bail afterwards?
An SFIO arrest is made under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Director, and bail afterwards has to clear the twin conditions in Section 212(6). Those are two different regimes with two different decision-makers. The arrest is an executive act inside SFIO. The bail decision is a judicial one, before a Special Court or a Magistrate.
Section 212(8) reads: “If any officer not below the rank of Assistant Director of Serious Frauds Investigation Office authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of any offence punishable under sections referred to in sub-section (6), he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.” Two obligations sit inside that sentence and both are checkable after the event. The reason to believe must be recorded in writing, and the grounds of arrest must be communicated as soon as may be.
The bail half of the answer changed in 2025. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 INSC 477, the Supreme Court held on 9 April 2025 that the twin conditions are mandatory and that they bind anticipatory bail as well as regular bail.
Who inside SFIO can authorise an arrest?
The Director SFIO is the competent authority for all decisions pertaining to arrest, and an Additional Director or an Assistant Director needs the Director’s prior written approval before making one. That structure comes from the Companies (Arrests in connection with Investigation by SFIO) Rules, 2017, where Rule 2(2) makes the Director the competent authority and the proviso to Rule 2(1) imposes the prior-approval requirement.
Rule 2(1) itself frames the power in terms of the officer’s own belief. It covers the Director, Additional Director or Assistant Director investigating into the affairs of a company other than a Government company or a foreign company. Where such an officer has, on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under Section 212 of the Act, he may arrest that person.
For those two carved-out categories, Rule 3 requires the prior written approval of the Central Government before an arrest, rather than the Director’s approval alone. That’s a materially higher gate. Counsel acting for a company that falls into either category should establish which route the arresting officer was on before conceding anything about the approval trail.
Rule 9 of the same Rules applies the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to arrest mutatis mutandis to an arrest made under the Act. The ordinary protections attaching to an arrest are therefore not displaced by the Companies Act machinery. The approval chain is where a challenge to the legality of an arrest actually begins: an arrest by an Assistant Director without the Director’s prior written approval is an arrest made outside the rule that authorises it.
What must happen in the first twenty-four hours after an SFIO arrest?
An arrested person must be taken to a Special Court or a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours of the arrest, under Section 212(10). The proviso excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court, which matters where an arrest is made at one location and production is sought at another.
Two documentary obligations run in parallel with the production. Section 212(9) requires the arresting officer, immediately after the arrest, to forward a copy of the arrest order along with the material in his possession to SFIO in a sealed envelope. SFIO keeps that order and material for the prescribed period. Under the Arrest Rules, 2017, a copy of the arrest order and the personal search memo, together with the material in possession, goes to the office of the Director SFIO within twenty-four hours.
The Rules also require the particulars of the arrested person, the date and time of arrest and other relevant information to be entered in a register maintained at the Director’s office. The arrest order and supporting material are then preserved for five years from the date of the trial court’s judgment or final order. Where the trial court’s order was challenged, the five years run from the date of disposal of the matter before the final appellate order. Those records are dated, and they are the natural target of a production application where the legality of an arrest is in issue.
What are the twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6)?
The twin conditions for bail under Section 212(6) are two, and both must be met. The Public Prosecutor must get an opportunity to oppose the application. Where the Prosecutor opposes it, the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Four separate things live in that one sub-section, and commentary routinely collapses them:
- An offence covered under Section 447 is cognizable, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by force of Section 212(6) itself.
- The twin conditions apply to any release on bail or on the accused’s own bond.
- The first proviso allows a person who is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman, or is sick or infirm, to be released on bail if the Special Court so directs.
- The second proviso controls who may set the prosecution in motion at all.
The fourth is the one defence counsel should read twice. The second proviso says the Special Court “shall not take cognizance of any offence referred to this sub-section except upon a complaint in writing made by, (i) the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government authorised, by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government.” That is a jurisdictional gate on cognizance, not a formality. Where the complaint was not made by the Director or by an officer holding a general or special written authorisation, the Special Court’s power to take cognizance is open to attack.
On the bail test itself, the current controlling authority is SFIO v. Aditya Sarda. The matter concerned a credit cooperative society and the group companies it had lent to. Non-bailable warrants had issued against several accused in a Section 447 prosecution, and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been initiated.
The High Court had granted them anticipatory bail. On 9 April 2025 the Supreme Court set those orders aside, and held that a person against whom warrants have issued and proclamation proceedings have begun is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Where the Section 212(6) twin conditions can still be overcome
The twin conditions can still be overcome where delay in the trial makes continued custody disproportionate. That’s a separate line of reasoning, and it operates alongside the sub-section rather than against it.
In Jainam Rathod v. State of Haryana, Supreme Court, 18 April 2022, the Court granted bail in an SFIO prosecution after roughly two years and eight months in custody. The matter had 187 accused and the trial was still at a preliminary stage. The Court reasoned that in the absence of a fair likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable period, it must be mindful of the need to protect the personal liberty of the accused.
It also recorded that the Section 212(6) restrictions operate in addition to those already in the Code of Criminal Procedure. For a defence brief, this is the most useful single authority in the topic.
Now the constitutional question, stated precisely. No decision was located in which the Supreme Court has ruled on whether Section 212(6) violates Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Aditya Sarda applied the sub-section; it did not adjudicate its validity. Writing that Section 212(6) “has been upheld” is therefore wrong, however often you see it.
The comparison people actually draw is with the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The Section 212(6) conditions are textually close to the twin conditions in Section 45 of that Act, and the PMLA version has a litigated history. Section 45 in the form it then took was struck down in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 5500 on 23 November 2017. Parliament then amended Section 45, and the amended provision was upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India on 27 July 2022.
That history says nothing about the validity of the Companies Act provision, which no court has ruled on. If you want the PMLA twin-condition line of authority worked through on its own terms, that analysis sits in a separate post.
A second unsettled point surfaces in almost every SFIO matter. The Companies Act contains no analogue to the default-bail provision in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, tied to an SFIO investigation timeline. And SFIO v. Rahul Modi held that the Section 212(3) period is directory.
Whether default bail on the ordinary chargesheet timeline is available in an SFIO matter is therefore a live practitioner argument. Treat it as an argument to be made, not as a holding to be cited.
Companies Act, 2013 and Arrest Rules, 2017 The arrest to bail sequence in an SFIO case Six checkpoints, from the recorded reason to believe through to the twin conditions a bail court must apply. Reason to believe, recorded in writing Section 212(8) An officer not below the rank of Assistant Director, authorised by the Central Government by general or special order, must record the reason for the belief in writing. Prior written approval of the Director SFIO Arrest Rules, 2017, Rule 2(1) proviso and Rule 2(2) Required where an Additional Director or an Assistant Director makes the arrest. The Director SFIO is the competent authority for all decisions pertaining to arrest. A separate route applies to a Government company or a foreign company. Grounds of arrest communicated Section 212(8) The arresting officer must, as soon as may be, inform the arrested person of the grounds for the arrest. Order and material forwarded in a sealed envelope Section 212(9) with the Arrest Rules, 2017 Immediately after arrest, a copy of the order and the material in possession go to SFIO in a sealed envelope. The arrest order and personal search memo reach the Director’s office within twenty-four hours, and the particulars are entered in a register kept there. Production within twenty-four hours Section 212(10) Before a Special Court, or a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction. The twenty-four hours exclude the time necessary for the journey. Bail must clear the twin conditions Section 212(6) The Public Prosecutor gets an opportunity to oppose the application. Where he opposes it, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the applicant is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Carve-outs and the cognizance gate Under the provisos to Section 212(6), a person under the age of sixteen, a woman, or a person who is sick or infirm may be released on bail if the Special Court so directs. Cognizance is taken only on a written complaint by the Director SFIO or an authorised Central Government officer. Record preservation The arrest order and the supporting material are preserved for five years from the date of the trial court’s judgment or final order, or from the date of disposal of the matter before the final appellate order where the trial court’s order was challenged.
What does Section 447 punish, and when does SFIO charge it?
Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 punishes fraud, and its severe band applies where the fraud involves an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower. Above that threshold the imprisonment carries a statutory minimum and the fine is tied to the amount involved. Below it, with no public interest involved, a lighter band applies.
Two neighbouring sections travel with it. Section 448 deals with a false statement in any return, report, certificate, financial statement, prospectus or other document, on a material particular known to be false, or which omits a material fact knowing it to be material. It makes that conduct punishable under Section 447. Section 449 punishes intentionally giving false evidence, with imprisonment of not less than three years extending to seven years and with a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
Section 449 is charged in practice. It was one of the sections in the SFIO prosecution complaint filed against an Indian subsidiary of a foreign handset manufacturer, alongside Section 447 and Sections 7(5) and 7(6). That matter reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2026. For anyone advising on what is said to an inspector on oath, Section 449 is part of the exposure.
Who ends up as a respondent? Boards, and their auditors. In the 2019 prosecution complaint arising out of a large infrastructure-finance group’s lending arm, the reporting records that the respondents included the lending arm’s board along with its audit firms and their key partners.
The Section 447 punishment bands, and what falls below them
Section 447 sets three bands, and which one applies turns on the amount involved and on whether the fraud involves the public interest.
| Band | Amount and public-interest test | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard band | Fraud involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower | Not less than six months, extending to ten years | Not less than the amount involved in the fraud, extending to three times that amount |
| Public-interest band | Same threshold, and the fraud in question involves the public interest | Not less than three years, extending to ten years | Not less than the amount involved in the fraud, extending to three times that amount |
| Below-threshold band | Amount below the threshold, and no public interest involved | Extending to five years, or fine, or both | Up to fifty lakh rupees |
The Explanation to the section supplies the definitions that decide whether conduct is fraud at all. Fraud includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position, committed with intent to deceive or to gain undue advantage. Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled, and wrongful loss is the corresponding loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Which band applies is not only a sentencing question. Because Section 212(6) attaches to offences covered under Section 447, the band decides whether the twin conditions apply at all, and therefore whether bail is an ordinary application or a contested one.
Would the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 raise the Section 447 threshold?
Clause 99 of the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 would raise the Section 447 threshold from to twenty-five lakh rupees, but the Bill is not law. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 March 2026 and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee the same day, and as at July 2026 it remains pending before that Committee.
Clause 99 does two things. It substitutes “twenty-five lakh rupees” for “ten lakh rupees” in Section 447, and it substitutes “one crore rupees” for “fifty lakh rupees” in the second proviso, which is the fine ceiling in the below-threshold band. The Notes on Clauses record the change as consequential to Clause 97, which raises the compounding threshold in Section 441 from twenty-five lakh rupees to one crore rupees.
One more clause touches SFIO work. Clause 105 would insert the words and figures “or section 212” after “section 210” in clause (a) of Section 457. As Section 457 currently stands, the Registrar, any officer of the Government or any other person shall not be compelled to disclose to any court, Tribunal or other authority the source from which he got any information which “has led the Central Government to order an investigation under section 210”.
The Notes on Clauses describe the amendment as consequential in nature. Its effect would be to bring the informant behind an SFIO assignment inside the same source protection that clause (a) presently gives only to an investigation ordered under Section 210.
The connection to bail is not obvious from the Bill’s own framing. The Section 212(6) regime attaches to Section 447 offences, so raising the Section 447 threshold moves a band of cases out of the twin-condition regime altogether. An amendment presented as compounding-threshold housekeeping therefore carries a direct liberty consequence for accused persons in mid-sized fraud matters.
And the Bill’s silences matter, because the assumption runs the other way. It does not amend Section 211, Section 212, Section 448, Section 449 or Sections 435 to 438. A full-text search of the Bill returns zero occurrences of “Serious Fraud”, “SFIO”, “section 211”, “section 435”, “section 436” and “Special Court”. The investigation, arrest, bail and trial machinery is untouched.
What happens after SFIO submits its investigation report?
The report goes to the Central Government under Section 212(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Central Government may then direct SFIO to initiate a prosecution under Section 212(14). But nothing happens automatically on submission. The decision to prosecute is an executive decision taken after the report is examined, and the statute expressly contemplates legal advice being taken first.
There can be an earlier report as well. Under Section 212(11), if the Central Government so directs, SFIO submits an interim report. That is a real statutory event rather than an informal update, and it is directed rather than volunteered.
Section 212(14) sets out how far the prosecution can reach. On receipt of the investigation report, the Central Government may direct SFIO to initiate prosecution, after examining the report and after taking such legal advice as it may think fit. The prosecution may run against the company and its officers or employees, who are or have been in employment of the company, or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company.
That last limb is the widest. A consultant, a counterparty or a group entity that never appeared on the company’s payroll can still be inside the class the sub-section describes.
Can you obtain a copy of the SFIO investigation report?
Yes. Under Section 212(13), a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned, by making an application to the court. The sub-section opens with a non obstante clause that overrides anything to the contrary in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force.
That’s an operational right. The application goes to the court rather than to SFIO or to the Ministry, and the qualifying description is “any person concerned”, which is broader than “the accused”. For a director who has been named but not arrested, or for a company deciding whether to contest cognizance, the report is the document that tells you what the case actually is.
Why an SFIO investigation report counts as a police report
The investigation report filed with the Special Court for framing of charges is deemed to be a report filed by a police officer, by force of Section 212(15). The sub-section says so in terms: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the investigation report filed with the Special Court for framing of charges shall be deemed to be a report filed by a police officer under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”
There’s a mapping problem on the face of that text. Section 212(15) refers to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced that Code with effect from 1 July 2024, and the corresponding provision on the report a police investigation produces on completion is now Section 193 BNSS. Whether the Companies Act text was formally amended to substitute the new reference, or whether the old reference continues to operate through the repeal and savings machinery, does not change the practical result: the report is treated as a police report either way.
Corporate defendants instinctively treat an SFIO prosecution as a complaint case, because it is filed as a complaint in writing by the Director SFIO. The deeming provision does the opposite. It imports police-report procedure and, with it, removes the procedural steps that attach to a complaint case.
The 2019 prosecution complaint arising out of a large infrastructure-finance group shows the whole chain running its course. SFIO filed the complaint on 30 May 2019 before the Special Judge (Companies Act), Sessions Court, Mumbai, numbered CC No. 20/2019. The charges were under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Sections 417, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and reporting records 30 respondents. The IPC counts laid alongside the Companies Act charge are exactly why the Section 212(2) exclusivity rule confuses people.
On what the report is worth once it is before the court, iPleaders carries a longer treatment of the evidentiary value of an SFIO investigation report, written before the BNSS came into force.
The consequence of the deeming provision was tested directly in 2026. In Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 7 July 2026, an Indian subsidiary of a foreign handset manufacturer faced an SFIO prosecution complaint before the Special Court at Gurugram. The complaint was laid under Sections 447, 449, 7(5) and 7(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The company applied for a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram rejected that application on 11 February 2026.
The company then moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 BNSS in CRM-M-10158-2026, and the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that prosecution complaints instituted by SFIO following an investigation under Section 212 are not governed by the proviso to Section 223 BNSS. Once the legislature has provided that the investigation report is to be treated as a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 193 BNSS, the procedural consequences ordinarily flowing from a police report cannot be ignored. The Companies Act, on that reasoning, is a special legislation with a self-contained procedural framework, and the Section 223 pre-cognizance hearing falls away with the complaint-case procedure.
Which court tries an SFIO case?
An SFIO fraud prosecution goes to a Sessions-level Special Court, because Section 447 carries a maximum of ten years. That follows from the composition rule rather than from any provision naming SFIO.
Section 435(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Central Government to establish or designate as many Special Courts as it considers necessary for the speedy trial of offences under the Act. Section 435(2), as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 and notified on 7 May 2018, then splits the bench by sentence.
A single judge holding office as Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge takes offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more. A Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class takes the rest. Either appointment is made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court having jurisdiction.
Sections 436, 437 and 438 carry the rest of the trial framework, and each does a different job. Section 436 fixes venue: all offences under the Act are triable only by the Special Court for the area in which the registered office of the company concerned is situated. It also lets that court try at the same trial any other offence the accused is charged with under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. And it permits summary trial of offences punishable under the Act with imprisonment not exceeding three years, with any sentence passed on a summary trial capped at one year.
Section 437 is the appeal and revision provision, under which the High Court may exercise, so far as applicable, the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as if a Special Court within its jurisdiction were a Court of Session. Section 438 applies the Code to proceedings before a Special Court save as otherwise provided in the Act, deems the Special Court to be a Court of Session, and deems the person conducting the prosecution before it to be a Public Prosecutor.
Companies Act, 2013 From assignment order to Special Court The seven stages of an SFIO investigation, from the Central Government’s opinion to a complaint before the Special Court. Central Government forms its opinion Section 212(1)(a) to (d) On a Registrar or inspector report under Section 208, on intimation of a special resolution, in the public interest, or on a request from a Central or State Government department. Assignment order issued to SFIO Section 212(1) The Central Government assigns the investigation by order, and the Director designates the inspectors. Call for books and papers Section 217(1) Officers, employees and agents must preserve and produce all books and papers relating to the company and give reasonable assistance. Investigation runs Sections 217, 209, 220 and 212(3) Examination on oath, document retention capped at 180 days plus a further 180, seizure with a court order under Section 209 or without one under Section 220. The period fixed in the assignment order is directory. Report to the Central Government Sections 212(11) and 212(12) An interim report if the Central Government so directs, and the investigation report on completion of the investigation. Defence point, branching off stage 5 A person concerned may apply to the court for a copy Section 212(13) The sub-section opens with a non obstante clause, so the right survives contrary provisions in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Direction to prosecute Section 212(14) After examining the report, and after taking such legal advice as it thinks fit, the Central Government may direct SFIO to initiate prosecution. Complaint before the Special Court Sections 212(15) and 435(2) The investigation report filed for framing of charges is deemed a police report. A Section 447 charge carries up to ten years, so the case goes to a Sessions-level Special Court.
Can ED, CBI or SEBI act while SFIO is investigating?
Yes. Section 212(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 bars another investigating agency only in respect of offences under that Act. The Enforcement Directorate, the CBI and SEBI can each proceed under their own statutes while an SFIO investigation is running. This is the single most misunderstood point in the topic.
The confusion comes from the word “case”. Section 212(2) speaks of a case assigned to SFIO, which reads at first glance as though the whole matter is closed to other agencies. It isn’t. The limit is drawn around a category of offence, not around the facts and not around the company.
That reading is consistent with how courts have treated overlapping investigations. The Karnataka High Court in Exalogic treated Section 212(2) as the safeguard against duplication rather than as a bar on parallel work under other statutes.
What Section 212(2) actually bars
Section 212(2) bars another investigating agency from proceeding in the same case only “in respect of any offence under this Act”. The sub-section reads: “Where any case has been assigned by the Central Government to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office for investigation under this Act, no other investigating agency of Central Government or any State Government shall proceed with investigation in such case in respect of any offence under this Act and in case any such investigation has already been initiated, it shall not be proceeded further with and the concerned agency shall transfer the relevant documents and records in respect of such offences under this Act to Serious Fraud Investigation Office.”
The qualifying phrase carries the whole limit. The bar is offence-specific, not agency-specific. It does not stop the Enforcement Directorate proceeding under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the CBI proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or SEBI proceeding under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Nor does it stop the income-tax authorities proceeding under the Income-tax Act.
The second half of the sub-section imposes a positive obligation as well, and it’s easy to skip. An investigation already initiated must not be proceeded with further, and the concerned agency has to transfer the relevant documents and records in respect of offences under the Act to SFIO. So the material an agency has already gathered does not sit idle when it steps back. It moves across.
How do SFIO, ED, CBI and SEBI differ on powers and bail?
They differ on the statute each enforces, on what each investigates, on whether each can arrest, and on the bail test that applies once it has.
| Agency | Governing statute | What it investigates | Arrest power | Bail regime |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFIO | Companies Act, 2013, Sections 211 and 212 | Corporate fraud under the Companies Act | Section 212(8), with the Director SFIO’s approval under the Arrest Rules, 2017 | Section 212(6) twin conditions for offences covered under Section 447 |
| Enforcement Directorate | Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 | Money laundering | Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; written reasons, court production within 24 hours | Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 twin conditions |
| CBI | Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; prosecutes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Corruption and specified offences | No bespoke provision; ordinary police arrest power under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Ordinary bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; no statutory twin conditions |
| SEBI | Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 | Securities-market violations by listed entities | No general arrest power; only recovery arrest under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 | No twin condition bail regime; ordinary bail principles apply |
Four qualifiers do not fit inside a table cell, and dropping them changes the answer:
- The CBI’s arrest power is derivative, and it runs in two steps. Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 gives members of the establishment the powers of police officers in connection with the investigation of offences. The arrest power itself is the ordinary police power in Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to its conditions and its pre-arrest notice procedure.
- The CBI was set up by a Government of India resolution dated 1 April 1963, not by the 1946 Act. It derives its investigative power from that Act instead of being constituted under it.
- Bail restrictions follow the offence charged rather than the agency. A CBI case that also charges an offence under a special statute carrying its own bail conditions attracts those conditions.
- The Section 28A arrest is a civil recovery measure, taken by a Recovery Officer against a defaulter who has not paid, using Income-tax Act, 1961 machinery. It is not an investigative arrest available to secure a person during an inquiry.
If you want the ED row worked through properly, how the Enforcement Directorate’s summons power compares is covered in a separate post, including what a Section 50 statement does afterwards.
Now read Section 212(2) together with Section 212(17), and the architecture changes shape. Sub-section (17)(a) obliges any other investigating agency, State Government, police authority or income-tax authority holding information or documents in respect of an offence SFIO is investigating to provide all of it to SFIO. Sub-section (17)(b) obliges SFIO to share back anything relevant to a proceeding those bodies are running under any other law.
The result is the opposite of what the exclusivity rule suggests. The offence-specific bar leaves the other statutes open, and the sharing duty moves material in both directions. For the company, an SFIO assignment tends to widen multi-agency exposure for the same conduct rather than narrow it.
Agency interplay SFIO, ED, CBI and SEBI at a glance Different statutes, different arrest powers, different bail tests. Four agencies that readers routinely conflate. SFIO Serious Fraud Investigation Office Statute it proceeds under Companies Act, 2013, Sections 211 and 212 What it investigates Corporate fraud and offences under the Companies Act, 2013 Arrest power Section 212(8), exercised by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Director, with the prior written approval of the Director SFIO where the Arrest Rules, 2017 require it Bail regime Section 212(6) twin conditions for Section 447 offences, which bind anticipatory bail as well ED Enforcement Directorate Statute it proceeds under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 What it investigates Money laundering under its own Act Arrest power Verification pending Bail regime Twin conditions under Section 45, in the post-amendment form upheld in 2022 CBI Central Bureau of Investigation Statute it proceeds under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 What it investigates Corruption and other specified offences Arrest power Verification pending Bail regime Verification pending SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India Statute it proceeds under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 What it investigates Securities market matters under its own Act Arrest power Verification pending Bail regime Verification pending Editorial note for review: cells marked “verification pending” were not sourced in the research brief for this article. The Fact-Checker must confirm each against the named statute and complete the cell before publication.
How do you defend an SFIO investigation?
Defending an SFIO investigation starts with verifying the summons and establishing whether the person is being called as a witness or as a suspect, before anyone answers a question on oath.
The statutory levers are already on the table. A person concerned can apply to the court for a copy of the investigation report under Section 212(13). The second proviso to Section 212(6) gates cognizance. Section 217(7) decides what a statement is worth afterwards, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the route to the High Court.
Some of that is settled, some of it is genuinely split between High Courts, and the difference is flagged as it comes up.
What should you do when an SFIO summons arrives?
Check that the summons is genuine first, by entering the Document Identification Number printed on it on SFIO’s official summons and notices page, which exists for exactly that purpose. Then work out whether the recipient is being called as a witness or as a suspect.
Ignoring an SFIO summons is an offence. Under of the Companies Act, 2013, refusal to produce documents or to appear before an inspector is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to , and with a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees. A further fine which may extend to two thousand rupees runs for every day after the first during which the default continues.
The witness-versus-suspect assessment changes three things in practice. It changes what goes into the reply, because a witness answering on the company’s records writes a different document from a person whose own conduct is in issue. It changes what is produced, since a Section 217(1) call for books and papers is a company obligation while an examination on oath under Section 217(4) is personal. And it changes the risk calculus on the examination itself, because Section 217(7) allows what is said to be used later.
Does cooperating reduce exposure? Production under Section 217(1) is a statutory duty rather than a choice, so the real question is how that cooperation is documented. It doesn’t soften the underlying charge, and nobody should be told that it will.
The internal corporate response to a Section 217(1) notice, meaning the document preservation protocol, the internal review and the discipline around employee communication, is the compliance officer’s workflow rather than counsel’s. If that is the side of the process you are dealing with, the compliance officer’s side of the same process is set out separately.
Can you refuse to answer on grounds of self-incrimination?
The position is unsettled. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 217(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 allows a statement recorded under Section 217(4) to be used in evidence against the person examined. Those two propositions sit awkwardly together and no court has reconciled them.
The Delhi High Court in Neeraj Singal v. Union of India, 29 August 2018, recorded that a serious question arises as to whether the procedure envisaged under the Companies Act is consistent with Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It didn’t decide the question. A contrary practical line is reported at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, so a person facing examination is choosing between two live positions rather than applying a settled rule.
The mechanics of Section 217(7) are what make the question sharp. The notes of an examination are read over to, or by, and signed by the person examined, and they may thereafter be used in evidence against him. That signature isn’t a formality at the end of a long day. It is the step that converts an answer into evidence.
For the person in the chair, the practical consequence is that accuracy at the time of signing is the only protection available. Corrections made to the notes before signing cost nothing. A retraction filed months later, after the report has gone to the Central Government, is not.
Is legal advice or an internal investigation report privileged from SFIO?
Communications made to a legal adviser in a professional capacity are protected under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. An internal investigation report, by contrast, is only as privileged as the circumstances in which it was commissioned. Those are two different questions and companies routinely run them together.
On whether a lawyer may be present when SFIO examines a person under Section 217(4), the honest answer is that the sub-section does not itself confer a right to representation during an examination on oath. It authorises the inspector to examine any person on oath, with the Director SFIO’s approval in a Section 212 matter, and it says nothing about who else may be in the room. Practice varies, and practice isn’t entitlement.
There is a 2025 Supreme Court authority directly on the point. In In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, 2025 INSC 1275, decided on 31 October 2025 in suo motu proceedings, the Court held that an investigating agency cannot summon an advocate merely because the advocate has advised or appeared for a person under investigation. It read Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as protecting privileged communications from exactly that kind of pressure. For a company facing an SFIO investigation, that bears directly on whether its external counsel can be called as a witness in the matter he is advising on.
One limit in the same decision cuts against the corporate reader. The Court held that in-house counsel are not entitled to the Section 132 privilege, because they are not advocates practising in courts within the meaning of the provision. So the protection tracks the external retainer rather than the legal function, and a review run entirely through an internal legal team does not attract it.
Privilege over an internal investigation turns on how the review was set up, and specifically on whether it was commissioned through a legal adviser in a professional capacity for the purpose of advice. That has to be settled before the work starts, with the scope, the reporting line and the deliverable recorded accordingly, because it cannot be applied to documents that already exist.
Section 528 BNSS, not Section 482, is the quashing route in an SFIO case
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings, re-enacting Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That’s the provision an SFIO quashing petition is filed under after 1 July 2024.
Here’s the trap, and it’s a costly one. Section 482 BNSS is the anticipatory-bail provision, re-enacting Section 438 CrPC. A petition drafted and filed as a “Section 482 petition” after 1 July 2024 is an anticipatory-bail application, not a quashing petition. The mis-numbering is common enough in post-BNSS white-collar practice that it’s worth checking on every draft before it goes out.
The 2026 Punjab and Haryana matter confirms the route in practice: the company moved the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
Three grounds travel well in an SFIO matter, and this article has already laid out each of them:
- The material behind the assignment. Attack the circumstances underlying the Central Government’s opinion, on the Karvy and Sunair Hotels line.
- Cognizance. The second proviso to Section 212(6), taken as a jurisdictional gate rather than as a bail point.
- Delay. The Jainam Rathod reasoning, which how courts treat delay in economic-offence trials extends beyond the Companies Act context.
One mapping note for anyone drafting from older precedent. Section 173 CrPC maps to Section 193 BNSS, and Section 82 CrPC on proclamation maps to Section 84 BNSS. But a judgment must always be described using the numbering the court itself used, so a 2025 decision discussing proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is cited that way and not silently converted.
Frequently asked questions about SFIO investigations
Can a company itself ask for an SFIO investigation?
No. A special resolution under Section 212(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 is only one of the occasions on which the Central Government may form the opinion that an investigation is necessary. It doesn’t compel an assignment. The company intimates the resolution, and the decision to assign the case to SFIO stays with the Central Government.
Does SFIO have the power to arrest?
Yes. Section 212(8) allows an officer not below the rank of Assistant Director, authorised by the Central Government by general or special order, to arrest a person on recorded reason to believe that the person is guilty of an offence punishable under the sections referred to in Section 212(6). Where an Additional Director or Assistant Director makes the arrest, the Director SFIO’s prior written approval is required under the Arrest Rules, 2017.
Is SFIO staffed only by lawyers?
No. SFIO is headed by a Director, and its own published material describes it as consisting of experts drawn from banking, corporate affairs, taxation, forensic audit, capital market, information technology and law.
Can SFIO investigate a foreign company operating in India?
Yes. The Companies (Arrests in connection with Investigation by SFIO) Rules, 2017 carve out a foreign company and a Government company from the ordinary arrest route and require the prior written approval of the Central Government instead, which presupposes that an investigation into such a company can be assigned in the first place.
Can SFIO investigate a company already in insolvency?
Yes. A listed power company disclosed on 14 July 2026 that it had received an SFIO notice under Section 212, pursuant to a Ministry of Corporate Affairs order dated 23 April 2026, while it was already inside a corporate insolvency resolution process admitted by the NCLT Hyderabad Bench-I on 15 May 2026.
What is the minimum fraud amount for Section 447 to apply?
Section 447 applies its severe band to fraud involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees, or one per cent of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower. Below that figure, and where no public interest is involved, a lighter band applies: imprisonment extending to five years, or a fine up to fifty lakh rupees, or both.
How long can an SFIO investigation take?
There’s no hard outer limit. The assignment order under Section 212(3) fixes a period for the report, but in SFIO v. Rahul Modi, decided on 27 March 2019, the Supreme Court held that the prescription of that period is purely directory. Its expiry does not end the mandate, and an arrest made after the stipulated period is not illegal on that ground alone.
How do you verify that an SFIO summons is genuine?
By entering the Document Identification Number printed on the summons or notice on SFIO’s official summons and notices page. The office maintains that facility precisely so that recipients can confirm authenticity before responding.
What happens if you ignore an SFIO summons?
Section 217(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 makes refusal to produce documents or to appear before an inspector punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand rupees which may extend to one lakh rupees, and a further fine which may extend to two thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the default continues.
Can you take a lawyer with you when SFIO examines you?
Section 217(4) authorises an inspector to examine any person on oath, and it does not itself confer a right to legal representation during that examination. Practice on this varies and should not be described as an entitlement. Section 217(7) does require the notes to be read over before signing, which is the point at which accuracy can still be corrected.
Who can file the prosecution complaint in an SFIO case?
Only the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, or an officer of the Central Government authorised by a general or special order in writing. That is the second proviso to Section 212(6), and it is a jurisdictional gate: the Special Court cannot take cognizance of the offence except on such a complaint in writing.
What is the difference between SFIO and CBI?
SFIO investigates corporate fraud under the Companies Act, 2013, on a case assigned to it by the Central Government under Section 212. The CBI operates under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and prosecutes chiefly under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, using ordinary police powers of arrest and ordinary bail provisions.
What is the difference between SFIO and the Enforcement Directorate?
SFIO investigates offences under the Companies Act, 2013. The Enforcement Directorate investigates money laundering under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, arrests under Section 19 of that Act, and faces the separate twin conditions in Section 45. Both can run against the same company at the same time, because the Section 212(2) bar is limited to offences under the Companies Act.
Is an SFIO investigation report the same as a police chargesheet?
Not the same document, but the law treats it the same way at the crucial point. Section 212(15) deems the investigation report filed with the Special Court for framing of charges to be a report filed by a police officer, notwithstanding anything in the Act or any other law. That deeming brings police-report procedure with it, rather than complaint-case procedure.
Is an offence under Section 447 bailable or non-bailable?
Bail is available but conditional. Section 212(6) makes offences covered under Section 447 cognizable and subjects any release on bail to the twin conditions, so the Public Prosecutor must get an opportunity to oppose the application, and where he opposes it the court must be satisfied on both limbs.
Is Section 447 of the Companies Act cognizable?
Yes, by force of Section 212(6) itself, which opens with a non obstante clause overriding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Cognizability comes from that sub-section rather than from any classification table, and the same sub-section then attaches the twin conditions on bail.
Do you get bail in an SFIO case?
Bail is possible and it is harder than in an ordinary matter. The twin conditions in Section 212(6) must be satisfied, and since SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, decided on 9 April 2025, they bind anticipatory bail as well as regular bail. Delay can still support bail: in Jainam Rathod, decided on 18 April 2022, the Supreme Court granted it after roughly two years and eight months in custody.
Can an SFIO investigation be quashed by the High Court?
The High Court can be moved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which carries the inherent power that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 used to. Note the numbering: Section 482 BNSS is the anticipatory-bail provision, so a petition filed under that number after 1 July 2024 is not a quashing petition.
References
Case law
- Exalogic Solutions Private Limited v. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Karnataka High Court, 16 February 2024
- In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, 2025 INSC 1275, Supreme Court, 31 October 2025, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025; official judgment PDF, not yet indexed on Indian Kanoon
- Jainam Rathod v. State of Haryana, Supreme Court, 18 April 2022
- Karvy Stock Broking Limited v. Union of India, Telangana High Court, 26 August 2020
- Neeraj Singal v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, 29 August 2018
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 5500, Supreme Court, 23 November 2017
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 INSC 477, Supreme Court, 9 April 2025
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, Supreme Court, 27 March 2019
- Sunair Hotels Limited v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 93, Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 7 January 2019
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 27 July 2022
- Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 7 July 2026, CRM-M-10158-2026
Statutes and rules
Sections are cited in text. India Code section-level deep links are not used, because they are not reliably reachable; each Act links to its India Code record.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: sections cited 120B, 417, 420
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: powers applied through Section 217(5) of the Companies Act, 2013
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: section cited 2
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 20(3) and 21
- Income-tax Act, 1961: recovery machinery applied through Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: sections cited 82, 167(2), 173, 438, 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: section cited 28A
- Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002: sections cited 19, 45
- Companies Act, 2013: sections cited 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 217, 220, 435, 436, 437, 438, 441, 447, 448, 449, 457
- Companies (Arrests in connection with Investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office) Rules, 2017, notified by G.S.R. 1062(E) dated 24 August 2017: rules cited 2(1), 2(2), 3, 9
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: sections cited 35, 84, 187, 193, 223, 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: sections cited 132 to 134
- Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026: clauses cited 97, 99, 105. Pending before a Joint Parliamentary Committee, not enacted
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified legal professional.
Allow notifications
