Supreme Court Upholds CBI Jurisdiction, Overturns High Court Decision; FIR Proceedings Reinstated in Rajasthan Case.

The SC overturned the HC's judgment, affirming the CBI's jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, as there was no valid revocation of consent by Rajasthan. The SC ruled that the HC improperly used its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR. It also dismissed the need for specific authorization of officers, upholding that a general notification was sufficient. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the proceedings based on the FIR.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CBI to register FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
2. Validity of High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Requirement of specific authorization for officers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of CBI to Register FIR:
The primary issue was whether the CBI had jurisdiction to register an FIR against respondent no.1 under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The respondent contended that the CBI lacked jurisdiction as the consent necessary from the State of Rajasthan had been withdrawn. The respondent relied on a letter dated 26.6.1999 from the Special Officer (Home), Secretary, Department, which allegedly indicated the withdrawal of consent extended in 1956 and again in 1989. The High Court accepted this argument, noting that the consent given in 1956 and extended in 1989 had become inoperative after the State Government refused to extend the provisions of the Act to the whole of Rajasthan.

In contrast, the Supreme Court found that there was no notification revoking the earlier consent. The letter cited by the respondent did not meet the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and could not be considered a valid notification. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the letter as a notification rescinding the earlier consent.

2. Validity of High Court's Exercise of Power under Section 482 of the Code:
The CBI argued that the High Court improperly exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court reiterated that the exercise of power under Section 482 is an exception and not the rule. The inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that this power must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

The Supreme Court cited precedents, including R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, outlining categories where the inherent power to quash proceedings may be justified. The Court found that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR did not fall within these categories, as the proceedings were not manifestly illegal, frivolous, or vexatious.

3. Requirement of Specific Authorization for Officers:
The respondent contended that for the CBI officers to function under the Act, they needed to be individually notified, and a general notification would not suffice. The High Court accepted this argument, stating that individual authorization was necessary.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, referring to precedents such as Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay. The Court clarified that a general notification authorizing the entire force of the Delhi Special Police Establishment was sufficient and complied with the provisions of the Act. The Court held that there was no requirement for specific orders for each officer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the CBI had jurisdiction to register the FIR and that the High Court improperly exercised its power under Section 482 of the Code. The requirement for specific authorization of officers was also dismissed, affirming that a general notification was adequate. The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings based on the FIR were reinstated.

---