CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG along with Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, H.P., Mr. Virendera Chauhan, Addl. A.G., H.P. & Mr. D.K. Thakur, Dy. A.G., H.P. for Respondent No. 2/ State of Himachal Pradesh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT W.P.(CRL) 2757/2015 Page 1 of 133 VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of certiorari quashing the Regular Case RC AC1 2015 A0004 registered against them and two others under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the PC Act') and Section 109 IPC by the respondent no. 1/CBI, and all actions taken in pursuance of the said Regular Case by the CBI. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a former Union Minister and also the present Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No.2 is his wife. They are alleged to have acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income during the tenure of petitioner no.1 as a Union Minister of State from 28.05.2009 to 18.01.2011, and the Union Minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) from 19.01.2011 to 26.06.2012 in the Government of India i.e. from 28.05.2009 to 26.06.2012 (hereinafter 'the Check Period'). The said Regular Case has been registered against them and two others, by the CBI on 23.09.2015 on the basis of a Preliminary Enquiry PE AC1 2015 A 0002 registered on 17.06.2015. 3. The petitioners' submissions are, primarily, twofold. Firstly, the petitioners submit that the CBI held a Preliminary Enquiry vide PE AC1 2012 A 0007 dated 19.10.2012 and closed it. The same is referred to as the First Preliminary Enquiry (First PE). The CBI, thereafter, started another Preliminary Enquiry allegedly on the same subject matter registered as PE AC1 2015 A0002 on 17.06.2015, referred to as the Second Preliminary Enquiry (Second PE). On the basis of the Second PE, the aforesaid Regular W.P.(CRL) 2757/2015 Page 2 of 133 Case is stated to have been registered. The petitioners submit that the CBI did not have the jurisdiction to register and hold a Second PE when the First PE on the same facts, and into the same allegations, had already been conducted and closed. Secondly, the submission of the petitioners is that the CBI does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the aforesaid Regular Case under the PC Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh, without obtaining permission of the State Government of that State under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter 'the DSPE Act') which, according to them, has not been obtained. 4. This petition was initially filed as 4063 of 2015 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking the following substantive reliefs: "i) Issue a direction thereby summoning the record of Respondent. 1 relating to Preliminary Enquiry dated 17.6.2015 being PE AC1 2015 A 0002; ii) Issue a direction thereby summoning the record of the Respondent. 1 relating to RC AC 1 2005 A0004; iii) That after perusing the record relating to the aforesaid Preliminary Enquiry and the Regular Case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper thereby quashing the RCAC1 2015 A 0004 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC was reg