Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI
David Mario Denis – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pension – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(D. K. Upadhyaya, J.)
1. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the complainant/informant of the First Information Report bearing No.0310 of 2022 lodged on 29.10.2022 at Police Station-Indira Nagar, District-Lucknow, under sections 342, 386, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (offences under sections 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C. and sections 7A, 8 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act have been subsequently added during course of investigation), assails the validity of consent accorded by the State of Uttar Pradesh under section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'DSPE Act') by means of an order dated 29.12.2022 for investigation of the said F.I.R. by Central Bureau of Investigation (herein after referred to as 'the CBI').
The petitioner has also challenged the notification/order issued by the Government of India under section 5 of the DSPE Act whereby the powers and jurisdiction of the members
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....
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
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....
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.
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
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....
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 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 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.
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