Writ petitions are not maintainable after filing of a charge-sheet and taking cognizance.

The writ petition arose from an order dated 16 March 2012 permitting the CBI to continue its criminal investigation but restraining it from filing a charge-sheet or final report without leave of the High Court.

The Supreme Court, by order dated 27 August 2018 in SLP (Criminal) No. 4654 of 2018, set aside the cognizance order passed by the CBI Court and directed the CBI to approach the High Court for formal permission to file the charge-sheet.

Pursuant thereto, the CBI filed CAN 10026 of 2018, and a coordinate Bench permitted it to file the charge-sheet by order dated 27 September 2022, while directing service of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents upon the petitioners.

The CBI thereafter re-submitted the charge-sheet before the Special CBI Court on 18 March 2023, where cognizance was taken.

The petitioners challenged that order in CRR 1112 of 2023, but the revision was dismissed on 24 March 2023; the coordinate Bench held that the CBI had substantially complied with the Supreme Court’s direction and that no court order had been violated.

Whether the CBI could proceed on the basis of the charge-sheet filed on 18 March 2023 after obtaining permission from the High Court, in view of the Supreme Court’s order dated 27 August 2018?

Whether the writ petition remained maintainable after filing of the charge-sheet and the Special CBI Court’s order taking cognizance of the offences?

Whether the interim order restraining or affecting operation of the charge-sheet was required to be continued?

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s order dated 27 August 2018, which required the CBI to obtain formal permission from the High Court before filing the charge-sheet after setting aside the earlier cognizance order.

It also relied on the order dated 27 September 2022 granting the CBI leave to file the charge-sheet and the coordinate Bench’s order dated 24 March 2023 dismissing the petitioners’ criminal revision, which had attained finality because it was not appealed.

Further, relying on Neeta Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761, the Court held that a writ petition challenging criminal proceedings is not maintainable after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, particularly where the petitioner is not invoking Article 227 of the Constitution or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The Court treated the Supreme Court’s direction as requiring a formal procedural step—obtaining leave of the High Court before filing the charge-sheet. That requirement was satisfied through the order dated 27 September 2022, and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioners’ criminal revision confirmed that the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance did not violate any subsisting order.

Although an order dated 24 March 2023 had stayed the operation of the charge-sheet on the basis that it had been filed before the CBI Court rather than the High Court, the Court modified that position in light of the Supreme Court’s 2018 direction and the finality of the coordinate Bench’s order dismissing the criminal revision.

Once the charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, the criminal process had entered the judicial stage. Applying Neeta Singh, the Court held that the pending writ petition could not continue as a means of challenging those criminal proceedings.

The order dated 24 March 2023 passed on CAN 4 of 2023 was modified accordingly.

The writ petition was disposed of as not maintainable after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, while leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue any other remedy available in law.

The prayer for stay of the judgment was rejected, and all pending applications were disposed of.