Does BNSS Apply To Cases Investigated Before July 1, 2024? Kerala High Court Orders Status Quo On SFIO Report Against CMRL

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (16th April) ordered status quo be maintained for two months with respect to the report filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, alleging financial fraud to the tune of several crores. Justice TR Ravi ordered thus in a petition filed by CMRL challenging the Special Court order taking cognizance of the investigation report. The Court passed the interim order after a legal issue was raised regarding the applicability of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 which mandates hearing of the accused before the Magistrate takes cognizance."Since the fudamental question regarding the operation of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are put in issue, I hereby give direction to maintain status quo as on today for a period of two months," the Court ordered.The matter will be posted after vacations.SFIO has filed a report stating that CMRL committed fraud to the tune of ₹197.7 crore, which included payments to Chief Minister's daughter Veena Thaikandiyil, her company Exalogic Solutions and other political figures. It is alleged that payments were made to certain political functionaries for the smooth functioning of the company. It is also alleged that bogus payments were made to Veena T. and her company under the guise of obtaining IT and Marketing consultancy.Based on the report submitted by the SFIO, Ernakulam Sessions Court has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 129(7), 134(8), 447, 448 r/w 447 of Companies Act 2013. CMRL and its General Manager (Finance) P Suresh Kumar have challenged this order on the ground that they were not given an opportunity for pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of BNSS. It is their case that since SFIO complaint was filed in March-April, 2025, BNSS is applicable. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the petitioners.ASG ARL Sundaresan on the other hand, appearing for the Respondent-authorities, argued that since investigation was pending when BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, provisions of CrPC will continue to apply.Significant to note that the Special Court was of the opinion that going by Section 212 (15) of the Companies Act, the SFIO report was not a 'complaint' but a police report under Section 173 of CrPC.The petitioners argued that it is discernible from Sections 212(6) and Section 436(2) of the Companies Act that the report submitted by the SFIO is to be considered as a 'complaint'.The petition is moved by Advocates K. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Paulose C. Abraham, Chethan Krishna R.Case Title: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited v Union of India and OthersCase No: Crl.Rev.Pet 427/ 2025 (Filing No.)Click Here To Read/ Download OrderAlso Read: [Section 223 BNSS] Notice Of Hearing Can Be Issued To Prospective Accused Only After Examining Complainant And Witnesses: Kerala High Court

Does BNSS Apply To Cases Investigated Before July 1, 2024? Kerala High Court Orders Status Quo On SFIO Report Against CMRL

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags