Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav (petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of FIR dated 18-05-2022, along with charge sheets dated 07-10-2022, 01-07-2023, and 07-06-2024, as well as cognizance orders dated 27-02-2023, 22-09-2023, and 25-02-2025 and all other consequential orders passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Ravinder Dudeja, J., dismissed the application for stay of proceedings and held that there were no compelling reasons warranting judicial interference at the interim stage, especially in light of the pending adjudication before the Supreme Court on the core issue of applicability of Section 17-A PC Act.
The impugned FIR alleged the commission of offences by the petitioner during his tenure in public office between 2004—2009. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had previously conducted preliminary enquiry (PE) and registered a regular case (RC) in the matter between 2009 and 2014, but no prosecution had been initiated during that time. However, after a prolonged period, the CBI registered a fresh FIR in May 2022, nearly 14 years after the alleged acts. It is in this context that the petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings on multiple legal grounds, prominently citing the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court acknowledged that Section 17-A of the PC Act was a significant safeguard introduced by the 2018 amendment, requiring prior approval for initiating action against a public servant. It also noted the judicial divergence on the retrospective applicability of Section 17-A — especially whether the provision would apply to pre-2018 offences when the enquiry or FIR is initiated after the amendment. The Court referred to the pending matter before the Supreme Court in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 12289/2023, where differing judicial views were expressed on the scope of Section 17-A and its applicability, prompting referral to a Larger Bench.
Considering this pending reference before the Supreme Court, the Court found it prudent not to grant a stay of proceedings in the Trial Court. Importantly, the Court stated that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as he is at liberty to raise all legal contentions, including the lack of sanction under Section 17-A, during the arguments on charge before the Special Judge. This would provide the petitioner with an additional forum for adjudication of his claims.
Thus, the Court declined to stay the Trial court proceedings, observing that the petitioner has sufficient opportunity to urge his arguments at the stage of charge before the Special Court.
[Lalu Prasad Yadav v CBI, W.P.(CRL) 1845/2025, decided on 29-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Varun Jain, Ms. Aparjita Jamwal, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Mr. Sumit Singh, Mr. Deepak, Mr. Digvijay Singh Rawat and Ms. Vamika Gupta, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate and Senior PP with Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima Saxena, Ms. Roshini W Anand and Mr. Imaan Khera, Advocates for respondent
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
