Anti-Corruption Court rejects plea seeking FIR against SEBI and exchange officials, warns complainant against forum hunting

A special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court in Mumbai has dismissed a private complaint seeking a corruption probe into the 1990s listing of Infosys Ltd, calling the allegations frivolous, contradictory, and an abuse of the criminal process. The court stated that at every stage, the complainant has failed to prove his case and appears to be presuming to fulfil his oblique motive by filing such frivolous complaints. The court order read, “Consequently, the complaint tendered before this Court does not warrant taking cognizance and is liable to be rejected.” In an order dated February 3, 2026, Special Judge Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar of the ACB court rejected the application filed by Sapan Shrivastava, who appeared in person. The court refused to direct registration of a FIR against senior present and former officials of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), BSE, NSE, and the Registrar of Companies (RoC). Shrivastava had sought directions under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), invoking cheating, criminal breach of trust, and corruption provisions, alleging that Infosys was listed on the BSE on June 14, 1993, and on the NSE on February 8, 1995, without mandatory SEBI approval, in violation of a June 18, 1992 SEBI circular and Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956. Also read: SEBI’s calls for ‘Bond’ing over bonds, launches pan India outreach program to promoter corporate bonds It is worth mentioning that SEBI issues observation letters to companies on the filing of IPOs instead of granting permission to list. Shrivastava had filed the complaint on this point. Earlier, the SEBI Controller of Capital Issues existed and was authorised to permit companies to list. Claiming to be an investor in Infosys, Shrivastava relied on RTI replies from SEBI and the RoC, Bengaluru, to argue that no valid SEBI permissions existed for the IPO. He further alleged that officials had accepted a bribe of Rs 25 lakh from Infosys to suppress regulatory action, an allegation the court noted was unsupported by any particulars or evidence. The court observed that the complainant had made vague and false statements regarding the alleged bribes without any specifics or any iota of evidence. No material whatsoever was produced to support any of the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The complaint named the current and former SEBI chief, former and serving whole-time members of SEBI, senior RoC officials, and the current leadership of BSE and NSE. Both exchanges intervened, terming the complaint “mischievous and malafide”, and highlighted that the alleged acts were over 30 years old and that the present office-bearers had no role at the relevant time. The court noted that the complainant failed to comply with the mandatory preconditions laid down by the Supreme Court, which require complainants to first approach the police before invoking a magistrate’s powers. The court order said, “The applicant/complainant is putting the gun on the shoulder of the Court by misusing the judicial process. It is required to be restrained forever. Therefore, the cognizance of such frivolous complaints by misuse of the e-filing procedure needs to be restricted.” It also observed that the complaint and subsequent filings were mutually contradictory. In a strong rebuke, the judge recorded Shrivastava’s history of failed PILs in the Bombay High Court, several of which were dismissed with adverse remarks and punitive costs, including a Rs 5 lakh penalty for abuse of process. The court held that the present application reflected “forum hunting” and an “oblique motive”. The order stated, “It appears that the complainant, who is in the habit of filing such frivolous petitions, despite repeated dismissals by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and despite being saddled with costs, has not taken any lesson and continues to approach one court after another by filing such frivolous petitions.” The application was rejected with no fresh costs, with the court noting that substantial costs had already been imposed in earlier proceedings. Last year, a local court in Mumbai had directed the filing of a FIR against the then SEBI chief, whole-time members, and others based on a complaint filed by Sapan Shrivastava, which was later stayed by the Bombay High Court, terming the local court order as ‘passed mechanically’.