Today, On 16th April, In a major relief to Kerala CM’s daughter Veena Vijayan, the Kerala High Court ordered a status quo in the SFIO probe. The court directed that no further steps be taken for two months in the Rs.182 crore fraud case involving Cochin Minerals and a firm linked to her.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ordered a two-month status quo regarding a sessions court decision that took cognizance of a complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in a financial fraud case involving Veena Vijayan, daughter of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, as one of the key accused.
Vacation judge Justice T.R. Ravi issued the interim order while considering a challenge raised by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) against the April 11 ruling of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam.
The High Court noted that the petition raised fundamental legal questions that needed examination.
The Court ordered,
“Additional Solicitor General (ASG) takes notice for the first respondent. Issue notice to respondents 2 to 12. The ASG shall place on record their counter affidavit. Since a fundamental question regarding the taking of cognizance has been raised, and since issues concerning the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) have been put in question, there will be a direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as on today, for a period of two months,”
The single judge directed that the matter be listed again once the Court reopens after the summer vacation.
The order stated,
“Post the matter immediately after court reopens,”
The SFIO recently named Veena Vijayan in its chargesheet related to the case, which also implicated Exalogic, CMRL’s Managing Director Sasidharan Kartha, CMRL itself, and a sister company.
The alleged fraudulent scheme was reportedly facilitated through two companies, Nipuna International Private Limited and Sasja India Private Limited. The SFIO has brought multiple charges under the Companies Act, 2013, against the accused regarding fraudulent expenses paid without any actual services rendered or costs incurred.
A major charge involves fraudulent payments of Rs.2.7 crore made to Veena Vijayan and Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, where she is a director. According to the SFIO, these payments were made without any actual services being provided.
Veena Vijayan has been charged under Section 447 of the Companies Act, which pertains to punishment for fraud, carrying severe penalties including up to 10 years of imprisonment and fines that may reach three times the amount involved in the fraud.
Also Read: Kerala HC Seeks Response from CM Pinarayi Vijayan & Daughter on Congress MLA’s Petition
The chargesheet also invoked Sections 447, 448 (punishment for false statements), 129 (financial statements), and 134 (financial statements and board reports) of the Companies Act against the other accused.
The sessions court’s order took cognizance of offences under various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, without notifying the proposed accused, including CMRL and its employee. CMRL, a public limited company based in Kerala that manufactures synthetic rutile and other industrial chemicals, approached the Court along with one of its employees, P. Suresh Kumar, after being named as accused.
The petitioners argued that failing to grant them an opportunity to be heard violated Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates that courts hear accused persons before taking cognizance of complaints.
They also pointed out that since the SFIO complaint was filed in March-April 2025, after the BNSS took effect on July 1, 2024, these safeguards must be observed.
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the sessions judge incorrectly stated that the BNSS procedure did not apply, claiming that the SFIO’s complaint under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act is not a “complaint” under the BNSS.
However, the petition argued that this interpretation contradicts the statutory framework of the Companies Act, which requires a written complaint for offences under Section 447 (punishment for fraud) to be cognizable by a special court. The petition also challenged the sessions judge’s reliance on Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, treating the SFIO complaint as a police report.
The petitioners maintained that this was a legal misinterpretation, as Section 212(15) is a deeming provision applicable only at the charge-framing stage and does not override the mandatory notice requirement under the BNSS prior to taking cognizance.
Senior counsel Siddhartha Dave represented CMRL, instructed by Menon & Pai Associates, while Advocate Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan represented the Central government.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
