An SFIO Complaint Is Not Automatically a Police Report: The Argument Under Section 212(15)
A complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office should not automatically become a police report for every procedural purpose. There is a substantial legal argument for this distinction, although the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopted a contrary interpretation in the Vivo case.
What Section 212(15) actually says
Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, 2013 gives deemed police-report status to the investigation report filed before the Special Court for framing charges. It does not expressly say that every prosecution complaint becomes a police report throughout the proceedings.
This matters because an investigation report records the investigation’s findings, whereas a complaint asks the court to prosecute the alleged offences. The argument for a limited interpretation is straightforward: Parliament identified a particular document and purpose, and that limited treatment should not automatically remove safeguards operating at other stages.
Support from the Karnataka High Court
In Srividya C.G. v. SFIO, 2024:KHC:14889, decided on 15 April 2024, the Karnataka High Court supported this distinction. Paragraph 52 limited the investigation report’s deemed status to framing charges, rather than taking cognizance and issuing process. Paragraph 63 repeated that position. The Court also emphasised that issuing process requires judicial application of mind.
What the Vivo High Court decided
In Vivo, CRM-M-10158-2026, decided on 7 July 2026, the company sought a hearing under Section 223 BNSS before the court took cognizance.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected that claim. In paragraphs 32–39, it held that where the complaint is based on and filed with the investigation report, the proceedings should be treated as instituted on a police report. It expressly rejected limiting the statutory fiction to framing charges.
The criticism of this approach is that it extends a provision expressly connected with framing charges to an earlier stage. That is an argument against the judgment—not a description of what the High Court held.
What the Supreme Court did
On 27 July 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice in SLP (Crl.) 13088/2026 and stayed the underlying complaint proceedings. This was interim protection, not a final ruling that the High Court was wrong. The contents of a subsequently indexed September order have not been confirmed here.
Conclusion
The strongest objection is not simply that SFIO chose the word “complaint.” It is that Section 212(15) identifies an investigation report and a specified purpose. Whether that provision justifies applying police-report procedure beyond framing charges remains disputed in these authorities; it cannot safely be presented as a settled prohibition or an unrestricted conversion.
Sources
Companies Act, 2013, Section 212(15): https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2114/5/A2013-18.pdf Srividya C.G. v. SFIO, 2024:KHC:14889, paragraphs 52 and 63: https://lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Srividya-CG-Ors-Vs-SFIO.pdf Vivo, CRM-M-10158-2026, 7 July 2026, paragraphs 32–39: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144427669/ Vivo, SLP (Crl.) 13088/2026, order dated 27 July 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157553304/
General information only; not advice on a particular case. Copyright © C&C Law Chambers. All rights reserved.
#IndianLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalAwareness
© C&C Law Chambers. All rights reserved.