DATE: 20.03.2026
COURT: High Court of Allahabad
BENCH: Justice Brij Raj Singh
FACTS:
The case arises out of Case Crime No. 342
of 2022 registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, under
Sections 121-A, 153-A and 295-A IPC against Mohd. Faizan and two others. The
Uttar Pradesh Police conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet on
19.12.2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow, who took
cognizance of the offences on 22.12.2022. The matter was thereafter committed
to the Special Judge NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow, and is
being tried as Sessions Case No. 2414 of 2023. The applicants, who had earlier
been granted bail by the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., filed a
discharge application before the Special Judge NIA which was rejected by order
dated 01.07.2025.
Aggrieved by the refusal of discharge, the
cognizance order dated 22.12.2022, and the continuation of proceedings before
the Special NIA Court, the applicants approached the Allahabad High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside both the orders and to quash the
entire criminal proceedings. It was their specific contention that the NIA Act,
2008 was not applicable because the investigation had been carried out entirely
by the State Police and not by the National Investigation Agency, rendering the
trial before the Special NIA Court without jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the High Court
was the maintainability of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Section
528 BNSS) against an order passed by the Special Judge NIA refusing discharge.
The State raised a preliminary objection that such an application is barred in
view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008, which provides a statutory right of
appeal to the High Court from any judgment, sentence or order (not being an
interlocutory order) of the Special Court. A connected issue raised by the
applicants was whether the NIA Act, 2008 applies at all when the investigation
of a scheduled offence has been conducted solely by the State Police and not
entrusted to the NIA under Sections 6 or 7 of the Act.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Allahabad High Court rejected the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable. The court held that
since the impugned order refusing discharge was passed by the Special Judge
constituted under the NIA Act, 2008, the only remedy available to the
applicants is to file an appeal under Section 21(1) of the said Act. The court
left it open to the applicants to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
The court first examined the applicability
of the NIA Act, 2008 to scheduled offences. It noted that Section 2(1)(g)
defines a “Scheduled Offence” as any offence specified in the Schedule to the
Act, and Section 121-A IPC is expressly included therein. Section 10 of the NIA
Act expressly saves the power of the State Government to investigate and
prosecute any Scheduled Offence or other offences under any law in force. The
court clarified that the Act applies whenever the offence falls within the
Schedule, irrespective of whether the investigation was conducted by the NIA or
by the State Police. Consequently, once the case is tried before a Special
Judge NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, the provisions of the NIA Act govern the
proceedings, including the right of appeal under Section 21(1). The applicants’
argument that the NIA Act does not apply because the State Police conducted the
investigation was held to be unsustainable at the threshold stage of
maintainability.
Turning to maintainability, the court
relied on the non-obstante clause in Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008, which
provides that an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order (not
being an interlocutory order) of the Special Court to the High Court on facts
and law. An order refusing discharge substantially affects the rights of the
accused and is therefore not interlocutory. The court observed that the
legislature has consciously provided a specific appellate remedy against orders
of the Special NIA Court, and in the presence of such a statutory provision,
recourse to the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible.
The High Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the applicants’
submissions regarding jurisdiction of the Special Court and directed them to
avail the remedy of appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008.
ANALYSIS:
The Allahabad High Court’s decision
primarily turns on the principle of statutory remedies and the exclusive
appellate mechanism provided under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The court held that once a case involving a scheduled offence under the NIA Act
(such as Section 121-A IPC) is pending before a Special Judge NIA, any
challenge to an order passed by that court including rejection of a discharge
application must be made through the specific appeal provided under Section 21(1)
of the NIA Act, rather than through the inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment reinforces that the NIA Act applies to all
scheduled offences irrespective of whether the investigation was conducted by
the National Investigation Agency or the State Police, as Section 10 explicitly
preserves the State’s power to investigate such offences. By rejecting the
maintainability of the Section 482 petition at the threshold, the court avoided
entering into the merits of the applicants’ contention regarding the
jurisdiction of the Special NIA Court.
This ruling reflects a strict adherence to
the legislative intent behind the NIA Act, 2008, which seeks to create a
self-contained procedural framework for cases involving offences affecting
national security and sovereignty. The court rightly distinguished the general
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. from the specific statutory
appeal route mandated by Section 21, emphasising that when a special law
provides an adequate and efficacious remedy, recourse to inherent powers is
barred. While the applicants raised substantial arguments based on Sections 6,
7 and 10 of the NIA Act regarding the necessity of NIA involvement for the
Act’s applicability, the High Court declined to adjudicate these issues in a
Section 482 petition. The decision leaves open the possibility for the
applicants to raise all contentions, including the jurisdictional challenge,
before the High Court in a properly filed appeal under Section 21(1), thereby balancing
procedural discipline with the right to challenge erroneous orders.
info@adhwaitha.com