Plea Of Lack Of State's Consent For CBI's Investigation Should Be Taken Soon After FIR Registration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that objections regarding the CBI's lack of state consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, must be raised at the earliest stage, usually right after the FIR is registered. It clarified that once the investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed, and a magistrate takes cognizance, such objections cannot be used belatedly to invalidate the proceedings, except where a quashing petition was already pending before cognizance was taken.

“We say so for the reasons that lack of consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ought to have been raised soon after registration of FIR. Once the investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed and the court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance, no such plea can be raised to vitiate the validity of an order taking cognizance of the chargesheet, save and except when it causes severe miscarriage of justice; or where proceedings for quashing of the FIR have been initiated and a chargesheet has been filed during pendency of the quashing proceedings. In such a case, the aggrieved person may have some justification in contending that the filing of a chargesheet during the pendency of the quashing proceedings will not prejudice his right.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench order, which quashed the criminal case registered under Sections 420 read with 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The High Court allowed the Respondents' quashing plea even after the trial court took cognizance of the offence against the Respondents. The High Court noted that there was a lack of the State's consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, and no allegations had been made out, making the Respondents prima facie guilty of the offences.

Calling the High Court's approach to be irrational, the Court said that had it been the situation where during the pendency of the quashing proceedings, a charge sheet was filed then the accused would have taken a plea that filing of charge sheet during the pendency of the quashing proceedings would not prejudice his rights, and he can very well raise the plea regarding the lack of consent even after charge sheet filing. Noting that such a situation was absent in the present case, the Court said that the High Court erred in allowing the Respondent's quashing plea.

The Court said that the High Court had prematurely decided factual disputes that should be left for the trial court to examine through evidence.

“Adverting to the findings on merits returned by the High Court on the merits of the allegations, it seems to us that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while assuming the role of a Trial Court. There are debatable issues which ought to have been left to the wisdom of the Trial Court.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the criminal case was restored to its file before the trial court, with the direction to the Respondent to appear before the Trial Court on 28.10.2025 and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Cause Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Versus M/S NARAYAN NIRYAT INDIA PVT. LTD & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

Suryaprakash V Raju, Additional Solicitor General, for the appellant – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Counsel, for the respondents