HC restrains SFIO from taking coercive action against Deepak Kochhar

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday restrained the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) from taking coercive action against businessman Deepak Kochhar, husband of former MD and CEO of ICICI Bank, Chanda Kochhar. Deepak had approached the high court seeking directions to the SFIO to limit his interrogation to office hours. Embroiled in the Videocon-ICICI loan case, he filed his plea after experiencing nearly 12 hours of questioning by the SFIO on October 22, from morning till late at night.

The background of the investigation dated back to allegations surrounding a ₹1,875 crore loan provided by ICICI Bank to Videocon Industries Ltd and its subsidiaries, granted during Chanda Kochhar’s tenure as MD and CEO. The probe, initiated in July 2021, has seen Deepak Kochhar summoned for prolonged questioning, with another session scheduled for October 28.

Concerned about the intensity and duration of the interrogations, Kochhar contended that the lengthy questioning infringed on his rights as a senior citizen. His counsel, senior advocate Amit Desai, argued that questioning individuals for extended hours could be deemed as an undue hardship.

He requested that SFIO follow the guidelines recently issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which mandates that interrogations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should occur only during office hours.

A division bench of justice Revati Mohite Dere and justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi granted interim relief to Kocchar, ordering the SFIO not to take any coercive action against him. This temporary safeguard was given after SFIO’s counsel assured the court that questioning would be restricted to office hours, aligning with the ED’s directive which emphasises respect for the right to adequate rest during investigation.

The court’s decision has now placed a temporary hold on any aggressive measures against Kochhar until the matter resumes for hearing on November 13. Kochhar’s plea reflected growing concerns around procedural fairness and individual rights during investigative processes, marking a noteworthy instance of the judiciary reinforcing limits on interrogation hours in high-stakes corporate fraud cases.