The Supreme Court of India, in its recent order, upheld the Bombay High Court’s directive to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe businessman Anand Jain in connection with an alleged Rs. 2,400 crore fraud. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, commended the Bombay High Court for its decision, stating, "We admire and appreciate the courage with which the High Court has passed the order. This is what is expected of any High Court."

The case came before the Supreme Court after Jai Corp Ltd. challenged the Bombay High Court’s order through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, and Amit Desai represented the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the High Court’s order, found no reason to interfere. These allegations, as outlined in the High Court's order, included misappropriation of public funds, investor fraud, money laundering through shell companies, and the creation of fictitious invoices. Given the gravity of the case, the High Court had directed the formation of an SIT under the CBI’s supervision.

The Supreme Court stated, "It is the least that the High Court could have done in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Zonal Director, CBI, Mumbai, shall now proceed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court and undertake the investigation in accordance with law. Therefore, we need not interfere with the impugned order." The Court rejected the argument that the case had escalated from a preliminary inquiry to a full-fledged investigation, ruling that the High Court was well within its rights to order the SIT probe. It clarified that if an FIR had been registered, the parties could challenge its legality through appropriate legal remedies.

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated January 31,2025 had directed the Zonal Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Mumbai, to form an SIT for a thorough investigation into the allegations against Anand Jain. The division bench, comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, issued the directive while hearing a petition filed by 61-year-old businessman Shoaib Richie Sequeira, who had lodged complaints with the EOW in December 2021 and April 2023. The High Court observed that the EOW had failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, compelling the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

The High Court, in its ruling, directed that "Zonal Director, CBI, Mumbai shall form a Special Investigation Team comprising of officers as are required for conducting thorough investigation into the two complaints dated 22nd December, 2021 and 3rd April, 2023 of the petitioner." It further ordered that "Joint Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai (Anti-Corruption Bureau) shall supervise the investigation." The Court mandated that all documents and evidence collected by the EOW be handed over to the SIT within one week and specified that the SIT must conduct an independent and impartial investigation, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order.

The allegations against Anand Jain and Jai Corp Ltd. involve large-scale financial irregularities. The petitioner alleged that Jain engaged in misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent financial practices, and money laundering through shell companies. The complaints detailed that between 2006 and 2008, Jain and his associates mobilized Rs. 2,434 crore from investors under the pretense of real estate development, only to divert funds into related entities. The CBI’s FIR further alleges that unsecured loans were falsely recorded as losses, fabricated invoices were used to justify non-existent projects, and offshore transactions were structured to siphon funds.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the Bombay High Court’s directive, noted that "if there is any First Information Report registered, it is always open for the aggrieved parties to seek quashing of the same on legal grounds available to them." The Court clarified that any challenge to the FIR should be considered independently, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations or the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the order.

Bombay High Court order dtd. 31.01.2025

Supreme Court order dtd. 17.03.2025