IMPORTANT POINT
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 miscarriage of justice.

1. 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 resident of Damsite, Naharlagun, in the district of Papumpare Arunachal Pradesh. On 21.04.2012, the respondent No. 2, the then MLA lodged an FIR contending inter alia, that in the year 2009, the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Rangne Enterprise had procured a loan of Rs. 4.50 Crores from the IDBI Bank Limited MSME Department, G.S. Road, Guwahati, on the strength of false and fabricated documents and accordingly, a case was registered being Case No. RC 6(A)/2013-GWH, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). It is alleged that the CBI embarked upon the investigation and finally, submitted charge sheet, without any consent from the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as mandated under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati, vide order dated 02.07.2015, transferred the case to the learned Magistrate, for disposal.

4. At the point of consideration of charge, the petitioner had filed a petition being Petition No. 352 under Section 239 CrPC, to be discharged of the offences under which the petitioner was booked. The petition was, however, rejected, by the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 28.02.2019.

5. Against the order dated 28.02.2019, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/2019, and this Court vide order dated 24.06.2019, passed in the aforementioned criminal revision petition, set aside and quashed the order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded back the matter with an observation to re-consider the issue of framing of charge afresh by reflecting all the materials available on record. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition, being Petition No. 3753, under Section 239 of the CrPC, in connection with CR Case No. 1766/2015, before the learned Magistrate, annexing the order of this Court, along with other relevant documents. Against the Petition No. 3753 under Section 239 CrPC, the CBI submitted its objection, wherein the CBI had misled the Court by stating in Para-7(V) that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has accorded general consent to the CBI long back and the consent was still in existence. However, no documents in support of the misleading statement was annexed by the CBI to substantiate its stance. The learned Magistrate again vide order dated 06.02.2023, in connection with CR Case No. 1766/2015, rejected the petition with prayer of the petitioner to be discharged of the charges levelled against him. The learned Magistrate relied on the misleading statements of the CBI and passed the aforementioned order and on 26.04.2023, charges under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC were framed against the petitioner.

6. It is further contended that against the order of rejecting the petition under Section 239 CrPC, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 11