On Wednesday, April 16, the Kerala High Court directed that status quo be maintained for two months regarding the Serious Fraud Investigation Office’s (SFIO) report that alleged a financial scam involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL).
The interim relief was granted by Justice T.R. Ravi, who passed the order while considering a petition filed by CMRL. The company had challenged the Special Court’s decision to take cognizance of the SFIO investigation report.
Read also: Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land is Taxable Under 'Capital Gains': Kerala High Court
"Status quo shall be maintained for a period of two months," ordered Justice T.R. Ravi.
The court has deferred the matter until after the summer vacations.
According to the SFIO report, CMRL allegedly committed fraud amounting to ₹197.7 crore. The investigation report also mentions financial transactions involving Veena Thaikandiyil, daughter of the Kerala Chief Minister, and her company, Exalogic Solutions. It is further alleged that certain political figures were also involved.
“Payments were allegedly made to political functionaries to ensure smooth operations of the company,” stated the report.
The SFIO further claimed that bogus transactions were carried out under the guise of IT and marketing consultancy. These included payments to Veena T. and Exalogic Solutions, which the report calls fraudulent.
Based on the SFIO’s findings, the Ernakulam Sessions Court took cognizance of the alleged offences. The case involves Sections 129(7), 134(8), 447, and 448 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
However, CMRL and its General Manager (Finance), P. Suresh Kumar, have challenged this cognizance order. They argued that the court did not grant them a pre-cognizance hearing, which is required under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
"The SFIO complaint was filed in March-April 2025, so BNSS applies," argued the petitioners.
A significant legal point raised in the hearing was whether BNSS or CrPC should govern the case. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan, appearing for the respondent authorities, argued that the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) continues to apply.
"Since the investigation was already underway when BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024, CrPC provisions are still valid," said ASG Sundaresan.
However, the petitioners claimed that under Sections 212(6) and 436(2) of the Companies Act, the SFIO report should be treated as a 'complaint', not as a police report.
“It is clear that the report under Section 212(6) must be considered a complaint,” submitted the petitioners.
Despite these arguments, the Special Court had earlier concluded that the SFIO report was not a formal complaint, but rather a police report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
The petition was filed on behalf of CMRL by a legal team comprising:
- K. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
- K. John Mathai
- Joson Manavalan
- Paulose C. Abraham
- Chethan Krishna R.
The High Court’s stay provides temporary relief to CMRL for the next two months. The court will take up the matter again after the vacation break. Until then, the proceedings based on the SFIO report are paused.
Quote from the Bench:
"Let the status quo be maintained for two months. The matter will be heard after vacation." — Justice T.R. Ravi, Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited v Union of India and Others
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet 427/ 2025
