Delhi District Court
Viinay Rai vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 5 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT010005222025
Criminal Revision No. 20/2025
Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
IN THE MATTER OF :
Vinay Rai
aged about 76 years
S/o Late Kulwant Rai
Presently resident of
C/o Shri Anand Singh,
A-16/10 Vasant Vihar,
South West Delhi,
Delhi-110057.
....Revisionist
VERSUS
Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Through its Assistant Director,
Ministry of Company affairs,
Government of India,
2nd Floor, Parayaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05.12.2025
CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.1 of 13
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.05
16:53:07
+0530
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition under Section 438/440 BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Ld. ACJM, Central, THC, Delhi in complaint case No. 296244/2016 titled as SFIO Vs. Koshika Telecom Limited & Ors moved on behalf of revisionist.
1. It is averred on behalf of revisionist that vide order dated 24.12.2024, trial Court has been pleased to allow the application filed by the complainant u/s 317 of Cr.P.C, 1973 ordering that the trial of accused No.4 be separated.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, present revision petition has been filed on following grounds:
GROUNDS OF REVISION
(a) It is submitted that trial court failed to appreciate that balance sheet of accused No.1 company is signed by accused No.4 as Managing Director and statement pursuant to Section 212 of Companies Act, 1956 has also been signed by him.
(b) It is submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that no relevant document was signed by the revisionist herein and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any contravention.
(c) It is further averred that trial court failed to appreciate that revisionist herein was not officer in default in terms of Section 5 CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.2 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:12 +0530 of Companies Act, 1956 and complainant has not placed its investigation report before the Court.
d) It is further averred that trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant has not placed any alleged communication entered with ROC seeking information in respect of address of accused No.4 and complainant failed to place any document on record to show that sincere efforts have been made to verify the address of accused No.4.
e) It is further averred that complainant cannot seek separation of trial of accused No.4 from the revisionist herein as revisionist has nothing to do with the alleged offence and separation of trial will seriously affect the interest of revisionist herein.
3. It is submitted that the revisionist has not filed any other criminal revision petition before any other Court.
4. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 be set-aside.
5. Respondent chose not to file reply but directly addressed arguments and filed certain citations in support of his contentions.
6. Respondent vehemently denied all the contentions of revisionist and submitted that revision petition is not maintainable against impugned order as the same is interlocutory CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.3 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:16 +0530 in nature. It is further submitted that present revision petition is filed just to delay the matter which falls in the category of oldest cases. It is further submitted that trial of accused No.4 is separated due to his non-appearance in the matter despite best efforts being made by the respondent. It is contended that to avoid the further delay in the matter and to proceed with the trial of other accused persons (which includes the revisionist), the trial Court has separated the trial of accused No.4. It is further contended that impugned order is well reasoned and contention of revisionist that separation would case prejudice to him is vague and misleading. It is furthest submitted that separation of trial would not affect the position/status of revisionist herein. It is further argued that complainant has made best efforts to serve accused No.4 on all the available addresses. It is further submitted that separate trial against the accused is a rule whereas joint trial is an exception and further, there is provision of splitting the trial u/s 317(2) Cr.P.C. It is prayed that revision petition be dismissed with cost being not maintainable as well as being devoid of merits.
7. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon following judgment/citations:-
(a) A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak &Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531
(b) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Neeraj Kumar Crl.Rev. P. 1194/2023.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record and CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.4 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:21 +0530 relied upon citations carefully.
9. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, trial of accused No.4 has been separated by the Trial Court as he was not served and produced before the Court and matter was approximately 15 years old and cannot be proceeded further due to absence of accused No.4. Aforesaid impugned order dated 24.12.2024 is reproduced as under:-
"Cr. Case 296244/2016SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. MS KOSHIKA TELECOM LTD. ORS 24.12.2024 At 4:00 PM PRESENT: Ms. Ratna Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for complainant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that present complaint was filed in the year 2007 and complainant has tried to its level best effect service upon accused No.4 number of times on all the available addresses. It is submitted that even fresh and correct addresses of accused have already been tried to be obtained from best possible sources. It is submitted that despite best efforts accused No.4 has not been served yet. It is submitted that due to non appearance of accused, matter is getting delayed. A request has been made to separate the trial of accused No.4, so that trial can proceed ahead qua accused persons who have been appearing regularly.
It is submitted by learned counsel for accused No.2 that in the interest of justice trial of all accused should remain joint with accused No.4 It is submitted that accused No.4 was MD of accused No.1 for the relevant year and separation of his trial will affect the defence of other accused. Ld. counsel for accused have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Mujibar Rahman vs The State Criminal Appeal no.3563 of 2023 and pointed out that Hon'ble Apex Court CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.5 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:26 +0530 has observed that Hon'ble High Court has not considered two aspects in ordering the separation of trial. It is observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that one aspect was that Ld. Magistrate was not satisfied that police had made sufficient efforts to procure the presence of the accused. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused persons that in this case also, the complainant has not made proper efforts to secure the presence of accused No4.
From consideration of submissions and from perusal of record, it appears that more than fifteen years have passed since the filing of the present complaint and due to non appearance of accused No.4 the matter could not yet reach the stage of framing of notice. The court is cognizant of the fact that accused who are appearing in the present matter are senior citizen and are getting harassed as they have to appear either in person or through video conferencing on each and every date of hearing. However, in the absence of accused No.4, the matter is not proceeding ahead. It is in the interest of all accused persons that the trial of accused No.4 be separated so that trial may proceed ahead against accused persons who are present before the court. The contention raised by learned counsel for accused does not appear to be reasonable, as even if it is to be believed that particular accused were controlling the affairs of accused no.1 company and their trial will be separated, the same does not affect the position or status of any other accused persons. The complaint in writing is already before the court along with all the documents and complainant will not be in a position to change role of accused in the complaint. Further if trial of a particular accused will be separated, the allegation against the accused regarding which trial is being separated will not affect the other accused in the present matter and in the separated trial.
The relevant portion pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused persons from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Mujibar Rahman vs The State is not the ratio decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Even otherwise the complainant has filed the address of accused No.4, who could not be served even through SHO PS Subzi Mandi. Accordingly, application is allowed and trial of accused No.4 is separated. Ahlmad is directed to register a separat CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.6 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.05 16:53:31 +0530 complaint number for trial of accused No.4. Complainant has filed copy of documents which is to be formed part of separate trial. For now both the present complaint and separate complaint be put up on the same date.
Complainant is directed to file fresh and correct address of accused No.4 within 15 days from today. In case no fresh and correct address is available with the complainant, then complainant shall file anaffidavit to that effect. Let fresh summons be issued to accused No.4 for the next date of hearing through SHO PS Subzi Mandi. If the summons remain unserved for any reason whatsoever, then the same be served by way of affixation. Complainant is directed to collect dasti copy of additional summons and speed post for service upon accused No.4 and to file report on the next date.
Be put up for service of notice of accusation on 05.02.2025.
-sd-
(MAYANK MITTAL) ACJM(SPECIAL ACTS) : CENTRAL DISTRICT:
THC: DELHI: 24.12.2024"
10. The first question to be decided by this Court is whether the present revision petition is maintainable in view of the bar created by provisions of Section 397(2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS. Here, it will be relevant to reproduce relevant portion of Section 397 CrPC/438 BNSS which is as under:-
"Sec.397 Cr.PC/438 BNSS- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-
(I) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.7 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.05 16:53:36 +0530 any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation ................ (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) ..............."
11. In the judgment Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Another, (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting "Interlocutory order" has observed:-
"It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decided certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code."
12. In the judgment of Neelam Mahajan & another Vs. The State & Ors. dated 08.04.2016, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"Applying these tests to the impugned order, this Court finds that the order permitting the re- examination of the petitioners is purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.8 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:41 +0530 proceedings but the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. Furthermore, it is impossible to spell out the concept of an interlocutory order unless it is understood in contradistinction to or in contrast with a final order."
13. Further, in the judgment of Varun Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C. No. 2424/2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court after referring the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Another" observed that the order passed by Ld. MM closing the right of complainant to examine Forensic Expert was held to be interlocutory order and consequently revision was held to be not maintainable.
14. Similarly, in the judgment of Sethuraman Vs. Raja Manickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the order refusing to call the documents and rejecting application U/S 311 CrPC are interlocutory orders and as such, revision against these orders are clearly barred U/s 397(2) CrPC.
15. Now turning to the facts of the present case, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order, has ordered separate trial of accused No.4 considering that the matter is approximately 15 years old and the same could not be proceeded further as accused No.4 could not be served despite sincere efforts being made in that respect. The impugned order does not terminate the proceedings. It is clear that impugned order, separating the trial of accused No.4 does not decide the dispute between the parties finally nor CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.9 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.05 16:53:46 +0530 does it culminate the proceedings between them. It does not decide or touch upon important rights and liabilities of the parties. It is merely a procedural order passed within the ambits of law and therefore, is an interlocutory order and hence, the present revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in view of bar created by Section 397 (2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS. Accordingly, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed being non-maintainable.
16. Even on merit, it is evident from record that trial Court has passed a detailed reasoned order for separating trial of accused No.4 from the rest of the accused persons, so that a 15 year old matter can proceed further in accordance with the law. It is quite apparent that despite efforts, accused No.4 could not have been served and matter is pending since last more than 15 years due to non-appearance of the accused No.4 and accordingly, it is considerably delayed because of non-appearance of accused No.4 only. On such consideration, the trial Court has ordered separation of trial after rejecting the contentions of the revisionist that accused No.4 was controlling the affairs of the company and he is a signatory to all the relevant documents and if the trial is separated, prejudice will be caused to the revisionist.
17. In Sugan Ram vs. State of U.P. and Anr., the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in application no. 8405/2019 vide order dated 12.03.2019 observed as follows :-
"..... That the finding recorded by the CJM concerned that unless the attendance of all the CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.10 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.05 16:53:50 +0530 accused persons are ensured, the case of the present applicant cannot be separated, is not a sound reasoning for rejecting the application dated 14.06.2018 of the applicant. It is well settled law that speedy trial of the applicant is a fundamental right and if one of the accused is absconding and the remaining accused persons are regularly appearing before the trial, the case of absconding accused is liable to be separated and the accused persons who are regularly appearing before the ld.
Trial Court cannot be permitted under the law to wait for the absconding accused. Section 317(2) Cr. P.C. clearly provides the power to Magistrate to split the case of such co-accused persons, who are not coming forward/absconding."
18. In Aman Kumar son of Kusheshwar Mehto vs. State of Bihar, 2020 3 BLJ 1, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna observed as follows:-
"36. The discussions made above clearly disclosed that separate trial against an accused is a rule, whereas, the joint trial is an exception and further there is a provision of splitting up of trial u/s. 317(2) Cr. P.C."
"62. In light of the discussions made herein above, in conjunction with the judgment rendered by my learned Brother, and the precedents available, it is clear that the discretion lies with the Trial Court concerned to decide on splitting-up. A blanket fetter cannot be placed on exercise of such discretion by the Court concerned. It is further obvious, that such discretion is to be judicially exercised, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, coupled with other mitigating factors, to be looked into by the Court concerned. This, by itself, creates a natural and in-built mechanism to safeguard against any manipulative or dilatory tactics by other co-accused or even the investigating agencies, as all possible factors have to be considered before splitting-up a case by the Court concerned. Such discretion given to the Court concerned under the Code is both reasonable and practical, and does not suffer from the vice of constitutional infirmity."
CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.11 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.05 16:53:54 +0530
19. In Shaikh Shakeel vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2015 1 BOM CR (Cri) 532, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad observed as follows :-
"11. When the other accused were not being found and when, therefore, the trial was not being proceeded with further, there was absolutely no justification for not separating the trial of the petitioner (and army other accused. who might be available). In the impugned order, the Magistrate observed that it would be against the interest of justice to separate the trial of the petitioner. It is not possible to agree with this observation. As a matter of fact, would be totally unjust, unreasonable and oppressive to insist that the petitioner must keep on attending the Court for an indefinite period, and that, though he is ready to proceed with the trial, though the prosecution is ready to proceed with the trial, still the trial of the petitioner should not be proceeded with by separating it from the cave of the other accused, whose presence was not being procured."
20. In the light of above precedents, there is no doubt that separate trial is a norm and joint trial is an exception. The presence of the accused no. 4 could not be procured despite best efforts by the complainant and as such, it would be unreasonable and unjust to leave the trial stuck only for the appearance of accused no. 4. There seems to be no error in the impugned order directing the separation of trial of accused no. 4. This Court does not find merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
21. With these observations, present revision petition as well as application seeking stay stands dismissed being non-
CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.12 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.05
16:53:58
+0530
maintainable as well as on merits.
22. Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly.
23. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of the order.
24. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.05
16:54:02
+0530
Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
th
on 5 day of December, 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No.20/2025 Vinay Rai Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Page No.13 of 13