Kerala High Court | Strangers Not Entitled to Certified Copies of Complaint Records | Access Restricted to Investigation Report Under Section 212(13) Companies Act, Courts May Seek Objections Under Rule 226
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun held that third parties have no automatic entitlement to certified copies of documents filed in criminal proceedings, including those arising from Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probes. Deciding petitions related to the SFIO’s investigation into Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd., the Court quashed Special Court orders that had permitted such access without reasons. It clarified that while Section 212(13) of the Companies Act allows concerned persons to obtain the investigation report, other documents remain subject to Rule 226 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice.
The matter arose from proceedings before the High Court of Kerala concerning disputes over access to documents generated in a Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probe. The petitioner, Shone George, described himself as the whistleblower whose complaint led the Central Government to direct the SFIO to investigate the affairs of Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), and Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. Following the investigation, the SFIO filed a complaint before the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, designated as a Special Court under the Companies Act.
Subsequently, Shone George applied to the Special Court for certified copies of the complaint and related documents. By orders dated 24 April 2025 and 29 April 2025, the Special Court directed issuance of certified copies of the complaint and the SFIO’s investigation report. A copy of the investigation report was accordingly furnished. Dissatisfied, he approached the High Court seeking directions for certified copies of all documents forming part of the complaint.
Meanwhile, CMRL, arrayed as a respondent in the SFIO complaint, challenged the Special Court’s orders granting such copies to the petitioner. The company asserted that Shone George was a stranger to the proceedings and that his request was intended to misuse the documents to damage its reputation. It relied on an interim injunction issued by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ernakulam, restraining the petitioner and his associates from distributing or republishing certain statements, which had later been made absolute.
The petitioner justified his applications by citing Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, which permits any person concerned to obtain the investigation report, and further referred to Section 212(14A) relating to disgorgement of assets. CMRL, on the other hand, argued that the power to act under Section 212(14A) rested exclusively with the Central Government. The dispute therefore centered on whether the petitioner, as a third party, could lawfully obtain certified copies of all documents beyond the investigation report.
The case required the Court to examine the interaction between statutory provisions and procedural rules. Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013, Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982, and Section 363(5) and (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were considered, alongside precedents addressing entitlement of third parties to certified copies and the nature of documents under the Indian Evidence Act.
Justice V.G. Arun recorded that the petitioner sought copies under the claim of being a whistleblower. The Court noted that the Special Court had allowed his applications in a perfunctory manner. It was stated: “It is thus evident that the certified copies were directed to be issued without considering the purpose stated in the applications. The cryptic manner in which the orders are passed has also rendered them unsustainable.”
On the statutory framework, the Court observed that Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, required third-party applicants to state the purpose and for the court to record reasons for granting or refusing. Citing precedent, the Court referred to Ismail P.M. v. Muhammad Ameer-ul-Islam: “It is clear from the Rules extracted above that, insofar as strangers are concerned, their entitlement for copies of records, except judgments, is subject to an enabling order by the Court, on a verified petition setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required.”
The Court also cited the Madras High Court’s reasoning in Karthik Dasari v. State: “Just because the affidavit discloses the purpose for which the copy is required, it does not mean that the third party would be automatically entitled to the certified copy of the document sought by him… the judicial officer is not required to mechanically grant certified copy of documents available in his Court to a third party, but is expected to adopt a judicious approach on a case-to-case basis and pass a judicial order.”
Regarding the Companies Act, the Court extracted Section 212(13): “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned by making an application in this regard to the court.” It then observed: “Going by the above provision, the person concerned is entitled only for a copy of the investigation report. As the petitioner is issued with a copy of Annexure A10 investigation report pursuant to Annexure A9 order of the Special Court, the requirement of sub-section 13 of Section 212 of the Companies Act stands satisfied.”
On the privacy aspect, the Court referred to Saurav Das v. Union of India: “The copy of charge sheet along with the documents do not fall within the definition of public document in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.” It then recorded: “Insofar as the documents, the certified copies of which are applied for, are not public documents, the question whether issuance of copies will infringe the privacy of the respondent/accused cannot also be overlooked. In cases where the court finds a possibility of the privacy of the parties being infringed, they are bound to be put on notice about the application. I request the Rules Committee to consider this aspect and decide whether to amend Rule 226 of the Rules by empowering the court to call for objections from the affected persons in appropriate cases.”
The judgment recorded: “For the aforementioned reasons, Crl.M.C.Nos.6537 and 6409 of 2025 are allowed and the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1803/2025 and 1851/2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1537 of 2025, are quashed.”
“Consequently, Crl.M.C.No.5765 of 2025 is dismissed. The court below is directed to pass fresh reasoned orders on Crl.M.P.Nos.1803/2025 and 1851/2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1537 of 2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners:
Smt. Mariya Rajan, Sri. Shinu J. Pillai, Smt. S. Suja, Smt. Ann Mariya John, Shri. Felix Samson Varghese, Sri. V. John Sebastian Ralph, Shri. Vishnu Chandran, Shri. Ralph Reti John, Shri. Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Smt. Geethu T.A., Smt. Mary Greeshma, Smt. Liz Johny, Smt. Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Sri. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondents:
Smt. O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Sri. Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor; Sri. Arshdeep Singh Khurana for Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd.
Case Title: Shone George v. Union of India & Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:66503
Case Numbers: Crl.M.C.Nos.5765, 6537 and 6409 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
