Supreme Court to Examine Whether CBI & SFIO Can Conduct Simultaneous Investigations Arising from the Same FIR

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a critical legal question concerning the concurrent jurisdiction of central investigative agencies—namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)—in relation to a common First Information Report (FIR). The core issue is whether both agencies can legally and simultaneously investigate offences arising from the same set of facts and allegations, particularly when overlapping statutes are involved.

This legal conundrum emerged from a petition filed by the CBI challenging a decision of the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the simultaneous probe by SFIO in a matter already under investigation by the CBI.

II. Factual Background

A. Genesis of the Dispute

A multi-crore corporate fraud case was registered, resulting in the lodging of an FIR.
The CBI initiated investigation under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption.
Simultaneously, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), invoking powers under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, directed the SFIO to conduct a fraud investigation into the same company based on similar facts.

B. High Court Proceedings

The accused challenged the SFIO probe before the Karnataka High Court, contending that the CBI was already investigating the case under the same FIR and factual matrix.
The Karnataka High Court, however, allowed both investigations to continue, ruling that the two agencies are governed by distinct statutes and operate within independent spheres of authority.

III. CBI’s Challenge Before the Supreme Court

A. Legal Grounds Raised

The CBI approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP), arguing that:

Simultaneous investigations by two different central agencies into the same offence or set of facts may lead to:
- Conflicting findings,
- Procedural delays, and
- Violation of the right to a fair trial.
Such parallel probes undermine the authority and independence of each agency and create administrative chaos.
The Companies Act does not override criminal laws, and in cases of general criminal offences already investigated by the CBI, SFIO must not duplicate efforts.
There is no legislative intent permitting dual prosecution or investigation by two central agencies for the same transaction or cause of action.

IV. Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions Involved

A. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI is India’s premier agency for investigating complex criminal offences including corruption, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy.
It derives jurisdiction based on notifications issued under Section 3 and 5 of the Act.

B. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)

SFIO is a specialized statutory agency under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, empowered under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.
It is mandated to investigate serious and complex frauds related to corporate entities.
Once an SFIO investigation is ordered under Section 212(1)(c), no other agency can proceed with investigationinto the same matter, as per Section 212(2), unless directed otherwise.

V. Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the simultaneous investigations by the CBI and SFIO into the same FIR and factual background are legally tenable?
Whether such concurrent investigations violate the principles of fair trial, procedural equity, or double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India?
Whether there exists any statutory bar or implied prohibition in the Companies Act or CrPC preventing two agencies from conducting separate but parallel investigations?
Whether the investigation by SFIO amounts to overreach when a specialized criminal investigation by the CBI is already underway?

VI. Potential Legal and Constitutional Implications

A. Constitutional Safeguards

Article 20(2) – Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The court may be called upon to determine whether dual investigations lead to de facto double jeopardyeven without conviction.
Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial: The Supreme Court might assess if overlapping investigations violate the accused’s right to a speedy and fair trial.

B. Precedent and Investigative Jurisprudence

The judgment in this case could serve as a landmark precedent in defining:

The limits of multi-agency investigations,
The interpretation of “same transaction” under CrPC Section 220, and
The procedural requirements when two authorities exercise jurisdiction under separate central legislations over common facts.

VII. Arguments Likely to Arise from SFIO/MCA

The Companies Act, 2013, is a self-contained code and SFIO acts under the authority of the Central Government to investigate serious corporate frauds.
CBI's investigation may cover broader criminal dimensions, while SFIO’s probe is sector-specific and aimed at ensuring corporate compliance and regulatory oversight.
The objectives, focus, and scope of SFIO and CBI probes differ—even if arising from the same facts.

VIII. Supreme Court’s Current Position

The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a verdict but has issued notice to the respondents.
The matter is under active consideration by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The Court has acknowledged the need to resolve the jurisprudential ambiguity regarding overlapping powers of investigative agencies.

IX. Conclusion

The upcoming verdict will likely shape the future landscape of corporate criminal investigations in India. With an increasing number of high-profile corporate frauds involving complex inter-agency jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s judgment could:

Harmonize the roles of the CBI and SFIO,
Establish clear procedural norms to prevent harassment and duplication,
And determine whether a single-window investigation model or cooperative agency model is better suited for India’s investigative framework.

Until then, both regulators and stakeholders will keenly await the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling on this vital issue of law and procedure.

"Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc