S. 482 CrPC Plea Not Maintainable Against NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge Even If State Police Probed Scheduled Offence: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an application under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable against an order refusing discharge passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, even if the state police investigated the scheduled offenceThe Court held that the remedy against such orders is to file a statutory appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008.A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh thus dismissed a petition filed by Mohd. Faizan and 2 others challenging the July 2025 order refusing discharge passed by the Special Judge NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the December 2022 cognisance order. They had also prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the case under Sections 121-A, 153-A and 295-A of the IPC.At the outset, the AGA Shiv Nath Tilhari raised a preliminary objection that the application under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable against the order of refusal to discharge in view of Section 21(1) NIA Act 2008.On the other hand, Advocate Aftab Ahmad, appearing for the applicants, submitted that this Court has inherent power to entertain the application under Section 482 CrPC./528 BNSS and the rejection of the discharge application can be heard and decided by this Court. It was also his case that, since the NIA Act, 2008, is not applicable to the applicants, it may be inferred that he was charge-sheeted by the State of UP, and that the application under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS would lie.It was the specific case of the applicants that the offences in the FIR were investigated solely by the Uttar Pradesh Police and that the central government had never entrusted the investigation of the FIR to the NIA under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, it was argued that, because the twin conditions of investigation and prosecution by the central agency were not met, the trial before the Special Court was without jurisdiction. Consequently, they argued that a petition under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable.In essence, it was contended that such offences, which have not been investigated by the NIA, cannot subsequently be prosecuted by it, even though such offences may be mentioned in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008.On the other hand, the state argued that Section 21(1) of the NIA Act operates with overriding effect and explicitly provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any judgment, sentence, or order of a Special Court, provided it is not an interlocutory order.Taking into account the submissions of both parties, the Court observed that the offence under Section 121-A IPC falls under the category of the Scheduled offence and hence, the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008 would be applicable in both cases, whether investigated by NIA or a State Agency.In essence, the Court ruled that the sole statutory requirement for the Act to apply is that the crime must fall under the category of a Scheduled Offence.Referring to Sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, the bench noted that till the Agency takes up the investigation of the case, it shall be the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to continue the investigation. The Court also referred to Section 10 of the 2008 Act, which sets out the State Government's independent power to investigate and prosecute any Scheduled Offence or other offences under any law for the time being in force. Now, regarding the impugned order, the bench noted that, since it was passed by the Special Judge under the NIA Act, an appeal against the same would lie under Section 21(1) of the 2008 Act. The Court added that the argument of counsel for the applicant that the NIA Act, 2008, is not applicable in the present case, was not sustainable. The bench clarified that the applicability of the NIA Act to the applicants could only be examined if the application under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS was maintainable in the first place. Since such an application is not maintainable against a summoning order or a refusal of discharge, the High Court declined to dwell upon the applicants' submission regarding the non-applicability of the Act.Consequently, the High Court rejected the application under Section 482 CrPC as not maintainable.Case title - Mohd. Faizan and 2 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123Click Here To Read/Download Order

S. 482 CrPC Plea Not Maintainable Against NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge Even If State Police Probed Scheduled Offence: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags