CBI further investigation upheld where State consent was valid and no prejudice from continued probe was shown.

State consent for CBI further investigation under the DSPE Act is an independent executive power, and the order permitting further investigation was upheld because it did not authorise a de novo probe. The Court found no prejudice or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, particularly as supplementary charge sheets had been filed and cognizance had already been taken by the competent court. It also held that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC could continue in the peculiar facts despite the interim order of the Supreme Court, and that an accused has no right to choose the investigating agency or block continued investigation merely because the trial has progressed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned Government Order sanctioning further investigation by the CBI and the consequential FIR were liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether the CBI Investigating Officer was empowered to continue further investigation in view of the interim order of the Supreme Court.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned Government Order sanctioning further investigation by the CBI and the consequential FIR were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The State Government had considered the materials placed before it, including the complainant's representation and the circumstances indicating alleged infirmities in the local investigation, and exercised its power to consent to further investigation by the CBI. The Court held that such consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 was an independent executive power and that the order only permitted further investigation, not a fresh or de novo investigation. The Court further held that the subsequent filing of supplementary charge sheets and the taking of cognizance by the competent court had intervening significance, and the petitioners had not shown prejudice or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Government Order and the FIR failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the CBI Investigating Officer was empowered to continue further investigation in view of the interim order of the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The interim order of the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's earlier restraint and permitted the CBI investigation to proceed. In the meantime, the CBI conducted further investigation, filed supplementary charge sheets, and the competent court took cognizance. The Court held that the investigation was lawfully continued in the peculiar facts of the case and that the accused had no right to choose the investigating agency or to prevent further investigation merely because the trial had progressed.

Conclusion: The CBI was held empowered to proceed with the investigation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were found to lack merit, the CBI investigation and consequential proceedings were upheld, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Consent by the State Government for CBI investigation under the DSPE Act is an independent executive power, and further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may continue after cognizance unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown.

---