THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13899 OF 2013 Date: 26.02.2026 Between:

Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, ACU, SPE, Hyderabad …Petitioner And M.J. Sivaramakrishna and three others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.05.2012 passed in Cr.S.R. No.1562 of 2012 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri T. Srujan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-CBI, Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri V.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri N.V. Subba Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri Vikas Chand, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, against one R.K. Khanna, P.N. Verma and M/s. Ankith’s Ad Blues Moving Media, represented by its Managing Partner, for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 468, 471 and 409 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’). The said complaint was filed under Section 200 read with 156(3) Cr.P.C. for referring the complaint to CBI for investigation and for report. The said complaint was filed on 08.05.2012 before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, vide Crl.S.R. No.1532 of 2012 and it came up for hearing on 22.05.2012. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, has allowed Criminal SR No.1562 of 2012 and ordered that the private complaint to be forwarded to the CBI for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the CBI seeking to set aside the same.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-CBI submitted that the impugned order forwarding the private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing the CBI to register a case and to investigate and to report the same, is passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, and that a Special Judge or Magistrate cannot direct the CBI to investigate and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and without the power, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, ought not to have directed the CBI to investigate the case on hand. It is only the Constitutional Courts, which can direct the CBI to conduct an investigation. The provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 would not confer any power on a Magistrate to direct/order the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the High Court under Article 226 and the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India have powers and jurisdiction to give such direction to CBI to investigate certain cases. Therefore, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner for investigation. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. He relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Vinay Agarwal v. State of Haryana and others, (2025) 5 SCC149, Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001) 3 SCC 333, Central Bureau of Investigation v. State

of Gujarat, (2007) 6 SCC 156, and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr.A.S. Narayana Rao, WP(Crl)1540 /2014 & Crl.MA. No.17252/2014

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Special Court in directing the CBI to investigate the case and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner were overruled by the Supreme