The Supreme Court has drawn a clear boundary for challenging Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiries lacking state approval under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — such objections, it ruled, cannot be pulled out after the investigation has run its course.
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, stated that any grievance about the CBI’s lack of jurisdiction due to absence of state consent should be raised immediately after the First Information Report (FIR) is registered. Once the probe is over, the chargesheet is filed, and a magistrate has taken cognizance, such objections lose validity — unless the challenge was already pending before cognizance was taken or unless a grave miscarriage of justice is shown.
“Once the investigation is complete, the chargesheet filed, and the competent court has taken cognizance, such pleas cannot be raised to nullify proceedings,” the Court clarified.
The ruling came while setting aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Indore Bench, which had quashed criminal proceedings against two respondents accused of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court had accepted the respondents’ argument that the CBI lacked the State’s consent to investigate and found no prima facie case against them. The Supreme Court, however, found this reasoning deeply flawed, calling it a premature adjudication of facts that should have been left to the trial court.
The bench observed that the High Court had overstepped its limits by examining factual disputes meant to be tested through evidence. It noted that if the chargesheet had been filed while a quashing petition was already pending, the plea about lack of consent might have carried weight — but that was not the situation here.
Reinstating the case, the Court directed the accused to appear before the trial court on October 28, 2025, and furnish bail bonds.
