Recusal, territorial jurisdiction, and second enquiry objections failed in a disproportionate-assets case proceeding.

Recusal was rejected because the alleged relationship with the Attorney General did not create an objectively justified apprehension of bias, and the objection was raised belatedly. The Court held that the second preliminary enquiry and ensuing regular case were not barred as a second proceeding on the same facts because the first enquiry did not culminate in a final criminal case and the later disproportionate-assets enquiry rested on a distinct factual foundation. Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because part of the alleged offence arose there, while State consent under the DSPE Act was relevant to investigative acts within Himachal Pradesh but did not invalidate registration at Delhi. Pending income-tax proceedings, alleged CBI Manual breaches, and unsupported mala fides did not justify quashing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the presiding judge should recuse on account of an alleged apprehension of bias; (ii) whether the second preliminary enquiry and the resulting regular case were impermissible as a second proceeding on the same facts; (iii) whether the CBI lacked jurisdiction to register the case at Delhi or to investigate in Himachal Pradesh without the State's consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; (iv) whether pendency of income-tax proceedings, alleged non-compliance with CBI Manual requirements, or alleged mala fides and political vendetta warranted quashing of the regular case.

Issue (i): whether the presiding judge should recuse on account of an alleged apprehension of bias

Analysis: Recusal was examined on the standard of real danger or reasonable apprehension of bias. The alleged relationship with the Attorney General, without more, was held insufficient to show bias. The objection was also raised belatedly after the hearing had substantially concluded, which weakened the plea. The Court relied on the principle that a judge is not bound to withdraw merely because a party demands recusal, unless the apprehension is objectively justified.

Conclusion: The recusal request was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the second preliminary enquiry and the resulting regular case were impermissible as a second proceeding on the same facts

Analysis: The first preliminary enquiry concerned alleged illegal gratification payments by company and public-sector officials and did not establish the petitioner as the person referred to in the seized material. When that enquiry did not link the petitioner to the alleged bribe trail, a fresh enquiry was opened on a different footing, namely whether unexplained income disclosed a disproportionate-assets case during the check period. The Court held that the two enquiries were not on the same transaction and that the first did not amount to a final FIR or regular case. The doctrine against second FIRs was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: The second preliminary enquiry and the resulting regular case were held to be valid.

Issue (iii): whether the CBI lacked jurisdiction to register the case at Delhi or to investigate in Himachal Pradesh without the State's consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act

Analysis: The Court held that a part of the alleged offence arose at Delhi because the petitioner served as a Union Minister there during the check period and drew salary there, which constituted a known source of income. That gave the Special Judge at Delhi territorial jurisdiction. As to investigation in Himachal Pradesh, the Court held that consent under Section 6 is required before the CBI exercises investigative powers within a State, but the absence of such consent does not invalidate the registration of the case at Delhi. Any challenge to specific investigative acts in Himachal Pradesh was treated as premature and left open for consideration at the appropriate stage if a charge-sheet is filed. The Court also rejected the broader constitutional challenge to the CBI and the federal-structure argument.

Conclusion: The case could validly be registered at Delhi, and the challenge based on want of State consent did not warrant quashing.

Issue (iv): whether pendency of income-tax proceedings, alleged non-compliance with CBI Manual requirements, or alleged mala fides and political vendetta warranted quashing of the regular case

Analysis: Income-tax proceedings were held to concern assessment and not the criminality underlying the disproportion-assets allegations. The Court found no specific mandatory provision of the CrPC or CBI Manual shown to have been violated so as to justify quashing. The allegation of mala fides and political vendetta was held unsupported by material on record. The Court further held that the speaker's permission was not required before registration of the case on the facts presented.

Conclusion: These grounds were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to disclose no ground for interference, and the criminal case was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary enquiry that does not culminate in a final criminal case and that concerns a different alleged offence and factual foundation does not bar a later enquiry or regular case on a distinct disproportion-assets allegation; territorial jurisdiction may arise where a part of the offence or a known source of income is located, while State consent under the DSPE Act is relevant to investigative acts within the State and not to the valid registration of the case at the forum having jurisdiction.

---