Kerala High Court building
| Photo Credit: R.K. Nithin
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (April 16, 2025) ordered status quo in the proceedings in the final complaint booked by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) in the pay-off case.
Veena Thaikkandiyil, the daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, is also an accused in the case.
The court issued the order on a criminal revision petition filed by CMRL, which pointed out that the company was not heard before the Special Court took cognisance of the complaint and decided to issue notice.
Senior counsel Siddhartha Dave, instructed by M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the counsel for the CMRL, contended that the Special Court ordered to issue process to the firm without issuing notice, which is a mandatory requirement under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The SFIO had filed the final complaint against the firm and a few others under the Companies Act, and the Special Judge issued the order taking cognizance of the offence on April 11. The provisions of the BNSS clearly state that it is incumbent upon the Special Judge to issue notice to the proposed accused before taking cognizance of the complaint. However, the Special Judge had held that the provisions of the BNSS did not apply in the instant case, on the basis that the complaint filed by the SFIO under the provisions of the Companies Act was not a complaint, and therefore the provisions of the BNSS do not apply, he contended.
The counsel for the firm contended that the decision of the Special Court was an erroneous one and contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
The Special Court had listed Sasidharan Kartha, his son Saran Kartha, Veena Thaikkandiyil, and their firms as accused in the pay-off case. Veena Thaikkandiyil was enlisted as the 11th accused for allegedly fraudulently receiving ₹2.73 crore from the company. Sasidharan Kartha was listed as the accused in two cases for alleged fraudulent transactions of ₹182 crore in one case and a fraudulent payment of commission of ₹13 crore for Anil Ananda Panicker in another case.
The Special Court had also provided a copy of the final complaint to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a request from the investigation agency the other day.
The company further contended that the order passed by the Special Judge was “bad in law and passed without due application of mind.”
The High Court, which has also stayed issuance of summons in the case, posted the case to be considered after the summer vacation.
Published – April 16, 2025 01:53 pm IST
