Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of above mentioned two Criminal Misc. Petitions, one preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation and another by Inspector S.P.S. Sondhi, impugning order dated 15.12.2014, passed by Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, operative part whereof reads as under:-

“Perusal of record shows that the complaint has been forwarded by the SP, CBI to Inspector General of Police through letter dated 10.03.2014. In view of the contents of criminal complaint dated 15.12.2014 and accompanying documents it is apparent on record that there are ingredients of offences punishable under sections 120-B IPC, 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 384 read with 120-B IPC. Therefore, CBI is directed to register a case and conduct further investigation in accordance with law.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners assert that the order passed by the Special Court is unsustainable in law in view of judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 574.

3. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for C.B.I also contends that while registering a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, number of issues are involved including question of sanction. In certain cases, registration of FIR is preceded by a preliminary enquiry and on the basis of same, decision to register FIR is taken. Besides, it is beyond the power of Special Court to issue direction to register FIR by invoking Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., it being a magisterial power.

4. Mr. Bhullar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ complainant contends that the order has been passed by the Special Court in accordance with law. According to him, no fault can be found with the said order. He relies upon judgment reported as Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao Vs. CBI, 2012 (189) DLT 747.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

6. It appears that respondent Harsimranjit Singh filed a complaint (Annexure P-2) before the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. He alleged that he was arrested by Inspector S.P.S. Sondhi, Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh pursuant to FIR No.60 dated 19.03.2013, registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 24 of the Emigration Act at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. He was taken to the Economic Offices Wing and interrogated. Complainant gave details of his bank accounts to the police. He was made to sign eight cheques by said official. He was also taken to HDFC Bank, Sector 40, Chandigarh to verify the account and the amount available therein. He was also made to sign certain papers for breaking open his locker and transfer of money from one account to another. Later, in February, 2014, complainant came to know that four cheques issued by him in the name of two persons namely, Jaswinder Singh and Mandeep Singh had been encashed. He suspected that said persons had shared some amount with Inspector S.P.S. Sondhi. Resultantly, he made a complaint to S.P. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh. The complaint was processed by the C.B.I and forwarded to Inspector General, U.T. Chandigarh for appropriate action. Petitioner, thus, invoked the jurisdiction of Special Court for registration of case against the accused (respondents No.2 & 3 herein). Special Court passed order as reproduced in the foregoing para, directing CBI to register a case and conduct further investigation in accordance with law.

7. Aggrieved, Central Bureau of Investigation as well as accused S.P.S. Sondhi have preferred present petitions before this court. Same question arose before the apex court in the case CBI Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), whether a Magistrate has power to direct Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into an offence. This question arose in view of certain appeals preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation challenging judgments of High Cour