Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Cbi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing petitions against cbi bribery prosecutions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. prior state consent mandatory for cbi under dspe s.6. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. belated consent challenge post-cognizance not sustainable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. firs post-consent; differs from suo motu registration. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. consent documents admissible after charge-sheet. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. cbi jurisdiction over central psu employees unimpeded. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. petitions dismissed; issues for trial. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
In both these petitions the common question of fact and law are involved and in view of that these petitions are being heard together.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the CBI.
3. In Cr.M.P. No.1876 of 2025 the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal case being R.C. Case No.11(A)/2023-R arising out of CBI/ACB R.C. No.10(A)/2023-R registered for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. The prayer is also made for quashing/setting
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
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....
CBI investigation – Govt. orders according general consent to exercise powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction ....
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.
Investigation and charges deemed void due to lack of lawful authority and failure to adhere to procedural safeguards, making subsequent proceedings untenable.
The court held that prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unnecessary in cases involving direct allegations of corrupt conduct by public officials.
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....
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
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
