Supreme Court Stays SFIO Proceedings Against Vivo India

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a special leave petition filed by Vivo India Pvt Ltd and stayed further SFIO proceedings against it.

The petition challenges the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment holding that the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is inapplicable to prosecutions initiated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva while issuing notice stayed further proceedings before the Special Court in Gurugram.

"In the meanwhile, proceedings in CIS COMA No. 24/2025 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, Haryana, shall remain stayed.", the court ordered

The case stems from an SFIO investigation into the affairs of Vivo India and its associated entities. Following its investigation, the SFIO filed a complaint before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram alleging that the company and its officials had committed a fraud exceeding ₹2,000 crore by falsifying books of account and financial statements, attracting various offences under the Companies Act.

The complaint was filed in August 2025. Vivo thereafter sought a pre cognizance hearing under the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS before the Special Court could take cognizance of the complaint.

Vivo argued that since the prosecution had been instituted by way of a complaint after the BNSS came into force, the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS entitled it to a mandatory pre cognizance hearing before cognizance could be taken.

Dismissing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Companies Act prescribes a complete statutory framework governing investigation, cognizance and trial before Special Courts, which overrides the general criminal procedure under the BNSS wherever the two are inconsistent. Explaining the interplay between the two statutes, the Court observed:

“Reference in this regard can also be made to Section 4 read with Section 5 of the BNSS, which itself clarifies that the provisions of the BNSS shall not supersede the procedure prescribed by any special law for the time being in force. Accordingly, since the Act, 2013 lays down its own procedure for cognizance, the general provisions of the BNSS stand excluded to the extent of inconsistency.”

For Petitioner: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sidharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocates, Priyank Ladoia, Arjun Narang, Puneet Dhanoa, Ananya Singh, Priyansha Sharma, Advocates, Mayank Pandey, AOR

For Respondent: Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR, Sushma Verma, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Kartik Dey