The Supreme Court on Thursday issued directions to expedite the court-monitored CBI investigation into alleged subvention scheme frauds involving real estate developers, banks and financial institutions, while stressing that the probe cannot be allowed to remain pending indefinitely.
The Court noted that the CBI has so far registered 50 FIRs, completed investigation in 18 cases, filed 17 charge sheets and one closure report. It also took note of the agency’s submission that prosecution sanctions are awaited against officials of financial institutions in five cases where offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act have been invoked.
To facilitate the ongoing investigation, the Bench directed the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab and Karnataka to provide suitable police officers on deputation to the CBI within ten days. It also directed the competent authorities of Bank of India, State Bank of India, UCO Bank, PNB Housing Finance, ICICI Bank and Sammaan Capital to expeditiously process prosecution sanctions sought by the CBI, making it clear that any delay would have to be explained before the Court.
The Court further directed the CBI to examine the additional material and documentary evidence compiled by the court-appointed amicus curiae, carry out further investigation wherever required, and share relevant information with the Enforcement Directorate in cases involving proceeds of crime. It also ordered investigation into allegations relating to projects of the Ozone Group, Vivansa Balsam, Rudra Buildwell and Omaxe Group.
During the hearing, the Bench voiced concern over the pace of the investigation and emphasised the need for timely completion of the exercise.
“
“Our concern is that the agency should not keep the investigation pending for years and years. In some of the matters, we expect them to come out with some efficient mechanism and complete the investigation in a time-bound manner. We appreciate that 17-18 cases have reached the stage of charge sheets or closure, but ideally we should quickly complete the investigation of the matters in hand so that when the next load comes, you are ready to take over it immediately.”
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also expressed concern over attempts by influential developers to stall or delay criminal proceedings through parallel litigation. When senior counsel appearing for certain developers submitted that they should be permitted to avail legal remedies, including proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court responded:
“
“No question of 482. We will not allow any High Court to interfere in it… People are very influential. We know they have the best of the facilities and the best of the lawyers available. They will create a hurdle somewhere. Our concern is that these people should not again be made to wait for decades.”
The Court also highlighted the larger public interest underlying the investigation, cautioning that settlements with individual complainants should not dilute the probe into wider allegations affecting other homebuyers.
Separately, the Court allowed 69 impleadment applications filed by homebuyers and clarified that while petitions may be withdrawn where individual settlements have been reached, such withdrawals would not prejudice the rights of other homebuyers affected by the same project. Applications seeking withdrawal on the basis of settlement will first be scrutinised by the amicus curiae before appropriate orders are passed.