The procedural compliance in investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act is crucial for legality; non-adherence may render such investigations void.

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

29.08.2025

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India , seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/ Direction and to settle the following questions of law: i. Whether, for purposes of telephonic call interceptions, the investigating agency is bound to strictly adhere to the governing statutory framework and the binding directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (as enunciated in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and reaffirmed in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India), or whether compliance with these safeguards may be treated as discretionary at the behest of the prosecuting agency?

ii. Whether a valid sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 is a mandatory pre- condition for initiating any inquiry or investigation in the present case, particularly when prosecution has admittedly conducted inquiries and enquiries months prior to the registration of the FIR and trap as alleged, in express deviation of its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and if so, whether the initiation of proceedings in the absence of such previous sanction is rendered unlawful or vitiated in law?

iii. Whether any deviation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, from the binding procedural directives prescribed in the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 is legally permissible, or whether such non-compliance is impermissible and thereby vitiates the integrity of the entire investigative process?

iv. Whether the registration of a First Information Report is legally sustainable in the absence of fundamental ingredients of the alleged offence – such as a specific demand (for illegal gratification) and the which are sine qua non for existence of mens rea constituting the offence of bribery?

v. Whether the failure of the investigating agency to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of apprehension, in violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and the mandate of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, vitiates the arrest itself, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings against the petitioner null and void in the eyes of law?

vi. Whether the deliberate act of the prosecution in withholding or suppressing relevant case materials and documents, both at the stage of FIR registration and while seeking police remand amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and violates the accused's fundamental right to a fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India , thereby undermining the legality of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner?

vii. Whether, in view of the express provisions of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 mandating prior approval of the competent authority and verification of a preliminary Source Information Report (SIR) before a proceeding with formal investigation, the prosecution's decision to bypass these mandatory procedural safeguards can be justified, and if not, whether such contravention renders the ensuing investigation and all subsequent actions ultra vires and legally unsustainable?

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Allow the present Petition and Quash the impugned FIR No. RC2172025A0010 dated 25.04.2025 registered at CBI/AC-II/NEW DELHI under Section 7/8/9/10 & 12 of PC ACT and section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 in the interest of justice alongwith entire legal proceedings commenced so far;

10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Co