Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Takam Sorang S/o Late Sorang Takio – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Sri Takam Sorang has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), with prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Magistrate, for short), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, being CR Case No. 1766/2015. It is averred that charges have been framed under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), against the petitioner, allegedly on the basis of misconstrued notion that the CBI had the consent of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to carry out the investigation against the petitioner, whereas, no such consent as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act, for short), was ever obtained by the CBI from the State Government in this regard.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, for short), Er. Markio Tado and the State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are arrayed as respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, respectively.
3. The petitioner is a permanent residen
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
The court clarified that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the case without specific consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and that the lack of specific consent did not result in a miscarriag....
The CBI does not require State consent for jurisdiction when the conspiracy is initiated outside the State, as established under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act.
Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences – Consent of State Government can be accorded at any stage, even when extension of jurisdiction of CBI to the State is still un....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases under the PC Act is contingent upon the State's consent and the existence of a de....
The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir has accorded general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act for the exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI to investigate certain offences in the State of Jammu....
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
The general consent given by the State Government for investigation of offences punishable under a specific act holds good for authorizing the investigative agency to investigate subsequent amendment....
CBI is the nodal agency for investigating offences committed outside India under Section 188 Cr.P.C., and State Government consent is not required for such investigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article