SimplifiTax - Tax, Accounting & Financial Advisory

Case Details: Manoj Gokulchand Seksaria vs. State of Maharashtra - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 646 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

A.S. Gadkari & Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, JJ.
Aabad Ponda, Sr. Adv., Alok Singh, Jugal Kanani & Rahul Pandey, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor, Vinod Chate, APP & Kuldeep Patil, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) addressed a complaint letter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), giving information in respect of the illegal acts/offences committed in respect of the Initial Public Offerings (IPO’s) of the Yes Bank Limited (YBL) and the Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (IDFC).

Pursuant to complaints, the CBI registered two criminal complaints. The petitioner was an accused in both complaints. The SEBI, by its Circular dated 20-4-2007, issued guidelines for consent orders and for considering requests for composition of offences under the SEBI Act, the SCRA Act, and the Depositories Act.

The petitioner filed consent applications in both proceedings. The petitioner was directed to disgorge an amount of Rs. 2.05 crores, being unjust profits made, and to also pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, being 20% of the disgorged amount, towards settlement charges to SEBI.

On 7-12-2009, Whole Time Member, the SEBI, accepted recommendations of the High Powered Committee, and passed the Consent Order. The petitioner, without admitting or denying charges, remitted a sum of Rs. 2.25 crores. The Consent Order specifically recorded that the Consent Order disposed of only pending proceedings under section 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, the adjudication proceedings and the proposed prosecution against the applicant in the matter of irregularities relating to the Initial Public Offerings

Thereafter, the petitioner, armed with the Consent Order dated 7-12-2009, approached the Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the criminal proceedings and chargesheet filed pursuant to the FIR.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the consent Order and payments made by the petitioner thereunder towards disgorgement and/or settlement charges did not, in any manner whatsoever, affect or impact the criminal prosecution/proceedings. Further, merely because the payment was made, an accused could not be exonerated of criminal liability.

The High Court held that, to quash the criminal proceedings, exonerating the petitioner from criminal liability, on the ground that monies had been paid to the SEBI, under a consent Order, would be misplaced and set the wrong precedent.

Further, the High Court held that, since offences were a part of a well-crafted criminal conspiracy executed with precision, after a lot of thought and keeping in mind only one thing, i.e. personal profit and personal illegal enrichment at the cost of a small investor, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner was justified.

List of Cases Referred to

Prakash Gupta v. SEBI [2021] 128 taxmann.com 362/167 SCL 560 (SC) (para 20.5)
K Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024) 10 SCC 384 (para 20.6)
CBI, SPE, SIU(X) v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591 (para 20.6)
State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (2014) 15 SCC 29 (para 21.1)
Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 64 (para 21.1)
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 (para 21.1)
Smt. Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal (2009) 6 SCC 364 (para 21.3)
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677 (para 22.3)
CBI, ACB, v. Narendra Lal Jain (2014) 5 SCC 364 (para 22.4)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (para 28.1)
Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 (para 28.2)
Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P 2023 SCC Online SC 949 (para 28.3)
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 (para 28.4)
Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317 (para 28.4)
Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 9 SCC 35 (para 28.4)
State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2022) 16 SCC 703 (para 28.5)
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 595 (para 28.6)
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 29.1)
Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables and Communications Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 492 (para 29.10)
Sushil Suri v. C.B.I. [2011] 11 taxmann.com 93/107 SCL 390 (SC) (para 29.2)
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29.4)
CBI v. Maninder Sing AIR 2015 SC 3657 (para 29.5)
Daxaben v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 (para 29.6)
Anil Bhavarlal Jain v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLIne 3823 (para 29.9).