Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads
In 2019, the company and the two industrialists filed a petition in the HC, seeking to quash a sessions court order of the same year refusing to discharge them from the case.
The HC's single bench of Justice R N Laddha on Monday quashed the sessions court order and discharged the duo and the company from the case.
The court in its order said a careful evaluation of the submissions and records makes it "evident that the complaint fails to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating".
When the offence of cheating itself is not made out, then even the charge of criminal conspiracy becomes unsustainable, it added.
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads
"A fundamental requirement for an offence under section 420 of the IPC (cheating) is the presence of an element of deception, which leads to the victim suffering from loss while the accused gains wrongfully," the HC said.
Popular in Markets
However, in the present case, there is a conspicuous absence of any such allegations from an affected party, it said.
"Merely by asserting that the accused has made a wrong gain without demonstrating the corresponding wrongful loss or deception suffered by a specific victim does not suffice to attract the offence of cheating," the court said.
The SFIO sought the bench to stay its order for a period of two weeks so that it could file an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Justice Laddha, however, refused to do so.
In December 2019, the high court stayed the sessions court order and it was extended from time-to-time.
In 2012, the SFIO filed a chargesheet against 12 persons, including the Adanis, accusing them of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
But a magistrate's court in Mumbai discharged them from the case in May 2014. The SFIO challenged the discharge order.
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads
The sessions court in November 2019 set aside the magistrate's order.
The industrialists, in their petition in the HC, termed the sessions court order as "arbitrary and illegal".
Senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for the company and its promoters, had argued that no member of the public filed any complaint against them claiming that they were cheated or suffered financial losses and hence the allegation of cheating levelled by the SFIO was baseless.
The SFIO's counsel, Anil Singh, argued that there were sufficient grounds to prosecute the petitioners for the offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
The Adanis conspired with the co-accused in the case and manipulated the stock market by divesting their shareholdings at inflated prices and acquiring shares when the prices declined, Singh alleged.
As a result, the petitioners unlawfully gained a huge amount, causing financial loss to the general public and other stakeholders, the SFIO charged.
The case involved allegations of market regulation violations amounting to nearly Rs 388 crore. The case stemmed from concerns over regulatory compliance and financial transactions flagged during an investigation by the SFIO.
