While quashing the FIRs and the cases registered against the CBI, the Calcutta High Court has clarified that on the ‘Nexus Test’ for Investigation, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not restricted to the lawful discharge of duty but extends to any act committed under the colour of office. Allegations of ‘excess’ or ‘high-handedness’ during a statutory interrogation do not strip an officer of this protection; rather, they reinforce the necessity of a prior sanction to prevent ‘investigative sabotage’.
The Court held that a federal investigating agency (CBI in this case) has the locus standi to challenge a state-registered FIR when that FIR criminalizes the agency’s internal, statutory investigative procedures, as such an FIR constitutes a direct interference with the ‘Institutional Autonomy’ of the agency. On the supremacy of the ‘Judicial Filter’, the Court emphasised that the mandatory bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC cannot be bypassed by a private individual filing an FIR. When an offence affects the administration of justice in a Court, only that Court has the jurisdiction to initiate prosecution.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Uday Kumar rejected the preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the CBI, and observed that the Petitioner No. 1 (CBI) is an ‘aggrieved person’, as the impugned FIR targets its institutional integrity and the legality of its core investigative processes at Nizam Palace. The CBI is not a ‘Legal Stranger’ to the controversy; and denying the Institution a voice would permit the systematic decapitation of its mandate through the weaponization of local criminal process.
The Bench pointed out that the acts complained of, namely summoning and examining a witness, possess an ‘inseparable nexus’ with official duty, and the failure of the State Police to obtain prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC at the threshold renders the registration of the FIR a manifest illegality. The Bench added that the protection afforded by Section 197 is an absolute interdict at the very threshold of the criminal process, and initiating an investigation without this jurisdictional trigger makes the entire investigative exercise void ab initio.
Moving forward, the Bench explained that allegations pertaining to the ‘fabrication of evidence’ (Sections 193, 195, 196 IPC) are hit by the absolute statutory embargo of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, as they relate to proceedings destined for a Special Court. The State Police cannot be permitted to masquerade as a supervisory body over the investigative records of the CBI when those records are destined for the exclusive and sovereign scrutiny of a Special Court.
The fact that an offence is ‘cognizable’ (such as threatening a witness under Section 195A) does not serve as a ‘jurisdictional hook’ to override the requirement of prior executive sanction for public servants under Section 197 CrPC. The cognizable label is legally incapable of acting as a jurisdictional solvent to dissolve the mandatory protections afforded to acts performed during an official federal investigation, added the Bench.
The Bench stated that the ‘Forgery Paradox’ in the complainant’s narrative, alleging coercion to sign while simultaneously admitting a successful refusal and subsequent release, renders the FIR ‘inherently improbable’ under Category 3 of the high-threshold guidelines of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A charge of forgery without a forged instrument is a legal oxymoron and a story of logical self-defeat that fails to cross the threshold of a prima facie case.
Further, the Bench explained that the choice of a distant jurisdiction (Bishnupur), the timing of the complaint, and the one-day delay collectively establish that the FIR is a ‘Counter-Blast’ designed to intimidate federal officers and derail the Coal Scam probe. The FIR was intended to act as a litigation shield aimed at decapitating the federal probe by criminalizing its lead investigators, falling squarely within the restorative ambit of Category 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Briefly, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a high-stakes federal probe into a multi-crore coal smuggling syndicate. In the legitimate discharge of his investigative mandate, Petitioner No. 2 (the designated Investigating Officer) served a peremptory notice under Section 160 of the CrPC upon Opposite Party No. 2, a self-described political volunteer, requiring his attendance for examination as a witness. In strict adherence to this regulatory mandate, the Complainant presented himself at the federal headquarters at Nizam Palace, Kolkata, on May 26, 2022, where his presence was documented from 11.00 AM until his departure at 6.40 PM.
The Complainant alleged that during this eight-hour window of statutory examination, he was subjected to a calculated battery of psychological intimidation by Petitioner No. 2 and other unidentified federal officials. The allegations included the production of fabricated bills and photographs intended to extort a signature, sustained interrogative pressure to extract incriminating statements against a high-profile Member of Parliament to establish a nexus to the proceeds of crime, and a pivotal allegation of collateral threat wherein the petitioners purportedly weaponized the safety of the complainant’s spouse and nine-month-old infant child, suggesting they would be judicially implicated and incarcerated if he failed to provide the desired testimony.
Upon his release, the Complainant bypassed the natural seats of redressal in Bhowanipore and the Kolkata metropolis, choosing instead to undertake a journey to the Diamond Harbour Police District to lodge an FIR at Bishnupur Police Station, 20 kilometers from the alleged site of occurrence. The FIR was registered as Bishnupur Police Station under Sections 120B, 193, 195, 195A, 196, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(ii), and 34 of the IPC. However, the High Court granted an interim stay on the proceedings on June 29, 2022.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Kallol Mondal and Advocate Amajit De, for CBI
Advocates Rudradipta Nandy and Saryati Dutta, for State
Advocates Ayan Poddar and Anjali Shaw, for Opposite party no.2
