The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is not automatic merely because an offence is listed in the Schedule. The Court emphasized that the Act’s applicability hinges on a mandatory precondition: a formal direction by the Central Government under Section 6, ensuring that only those cases deemed fit due to gravity or national interest are transferred to the NIA framework.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 528 BNSS seeks to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants under Sections 121-A, 153-A, and 295-A IPC, which are listed as Scheduled Offences under Schedule VIII-A of the NIA Act, 2008. The case was investigated by the Uttar Pradesh Police, not the National Investigation Agency, and the charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow on 19.12.2022. Cognizance was taken on 22.12.2022. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Special Judge NIA, Lucknow, which rejected the applicants’ discharge application on 01.07.2025. The applicants now challenge the jurisdiction of the Special Court and seek quashing of the entire proceedings.
Key Facts
- The FIR (Case Crime No. 342 of 2022) was registered on 27.09.2022 by Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow
- No report under Section 6(1) of the NIA Act, 2008 was forwarded by the police to the State Government
- The State Government did not forward any report to the Central Government
- The Central Government did not issue any direction under Section 6(4) entrusting the investigation to the NIA
- The prosecution is being conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh, not the NIA
- The charge sheet was filed before a Magistrate, not the NIA
- The applicants were granted bail by this Court on 25.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 2886, 3070 and 3071 of 2023, without any objection to jurisdiction
- The Special Judge NIA, Lucknow, issued summons and conducted proceedings despite no NIA involvement
Procedural History
- 27.09.2022: FIR registered under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 295-A IPC at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow
- 19.12.2022: Charge sheet filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow
- 22.12.2022: Cognizance taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow
- Undated: Case transferred to Special Judge NIA, Court No. 3, Lucknow without Central Government direction
- 01.07.2025: Special Judge NIA rejected discharge application
- 23.02.2026: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. heard
- 20.03.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Applicants (Mohd. Faizan and others): Argued that since the NIA never investigated the case under Section 6 or 7 of the NIA Act, the Special Court lacks jurisdiction. They contended that the State Government retains independent power to investigate and prosecute Scheduled Offences under Section 10, and such cases must be tried before regular courts.
Respondent (State of U.P.): Contended that the Special Court has jurisdiction because the offences are Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act, and the rejection of discharge is an appealable order under Section 21(1). They relied on precedents holding that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against orders of Special Courts.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek: (1) quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.12.2022; (2) quashing of the discharge rejection order dated 01.07.2025; (3) setting aside of all proceedings before the Special Judge NIA; and (4) direction to transfer the case to a regular court.
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the NIA Act, 2008 is triggered merely because an offence is listed in the Schedule, or whether it requires a prior direction by the Central Government under Section 6, making investigation by the NIA or State Agency a mandatory precondition.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on Bahadur Kora v. State of Bihar, Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra, and Jagdish Singh v. State of Rajasthan to argue that the NIA Act operates on a twin-condition framework: (1) the offence must be a Scheduled Offence, and (2) the investigation must be entrusted to the Agency under Section 6 or 7. They emphasized that Section 10 saves the State’s power to investigate and prosecute without NIA involvement. They further cited Section 6(4), which vests discretion in the Central Government to determine fitness for NIA investigation based on gravity, and argued that absence of such determination nullifies Special Court jurisdiction. The applicants also noted that the prosecution is conducted by the State, not the NIA, and that the Special Court’s assumption of jurisdiction violates the Act’s scheme.
For the Respondent/State
The State relied on Sallahuddin v. State of U.P., Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P., and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. to argue that once a Special Court is seized of a case involving a Scheduled Offence, Section 21(1) bars any collateral attack under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They contended that the mere fact that the Special Judge NIA has conducted proceedings, issued summons, and rejected discharge, makes the matter appealable under Section 21(1), and that the jurisdictional challenge must be raised through appeal, not quashing. They also argued that Section 22(2) allows State Agencies to function as "Agency" under the Act, thereby validating the Special Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme of the NIA Act, 2008, particularly Sections 2, 6, 7, 10, and 21. It noted that Section 2(a) defines "Agency" exclusively as the National Investigation Agency, while Section 22(2) creates a separate category for State Investigating Agencies. The Court held that the definition of "Agency" in Section 2(a) is not overridden by Section 22(2), which merely permits State Agencies to be designated as Special Courts’ investigating bodies - but only after the Central Government has invoked Section 6.
"Section 6 mandates a two-step determination: first, whether the offence is a Scheduled Offence, and second, whether it is a fit case for investigation by the Agency. Without this determination, the NIA Act does not come into play."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Special Court’s jurisdiction is automatic upon the offence being listed in the Schedule. It emphasized that Section 10 explicitly saves the State’s power to investigate and prosecute Scheduled Offences under ordinary law, and that this saving clause would be rendered otiose if jurisdiction were automatic. The Court also distinguished Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that its exception for UAPA cases was based on a specific definition in that statute, and cannot be extended to the NIA Act.
The Court further held that the rejection of discharge is not an interlocutory order under Section 21(1), but that does not validate jurisdiction where the Act’s foundational condition - Central Government direction under Section 6 - is absent. The Court concluded that the Special Court’s assumption of jurisdiction was ultra vires the Act, but since the remedy lies in appeal under Section 21(1), the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
The Verdict
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not maintainable. The Court holds that while the Special Court lacked jurisdiction due to absence of Central Government direction under Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, the applicants’ remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 21(1) against the discharge rejection order dated 01.07.2025. The applicants are directed to prefer such appeal within the statutory period of thirty days from the date of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Not Automatic for Scheduled Offences
- Practitioners must verify whether the Central Government issued a direction under Section 6(4) before accepting Special Court jurisdiction
- Merely because an offence is listed in the Schedule does not mean the case must be tried before a Special Court
- If no Section 6 direction exists, the case must proceed before a regular court under CrPC/BNSS
Section 10 Is a Critical Safeguard
- The State Government retains independent power to investigate and prosecute Scheduled Offences under any law in force
- Prosecution by the State, not the NIA, is a strong indicator that Section 6 was never invoked
- Any attempt to transfer such cases to Special Courts without Section 6 compliance is legally invalid
Appeal, Not Quashing, Is the Exclusive Remedy
- Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against Special Court orders are not maintainable, even if jurisdiction is defective
- Challenges to jurisdiction must be raised through appeal under Section 21(1) within 30 days
- Courts will not entertain collateral attacks; procedural compliance must be pursued through statutory channels
