This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — is not maintainable against an order of a Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) that refuses to discharge an accused. The correct remedy, the Court held, is a statutory appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
- Case: Mohd. Faizan and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123 — Neutral Citation 2026:AHC-LKO:20344
- Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Date: 21 March 2026
Facts
The applicants were accused in a case registered under Sections 121-A (conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India), 153-A (promoting enmity between groups) and 295-A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). These are “Scheduled Offences” for the purposes of the NIA Act.
They invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to challenge:
- The order of the Special Judge (NIA) / Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow (passed in July 2025) refusing to discharge them; and
- The earlier order taking cognisance (December 2022).
They sought quashing of the entire proceedings.
What the Court Held
The High Court declined to entertain the inherent-jurisdiction petition. Two propositions drove the decision.
1. The NIA Act applies by reference to the nature of the offence, not the investigating agency. The Court clarified that the applicability of the NIA Act is determined by whether the offence is listed in the Schedule to the Act. If the offence is a Scheduled Offence, the Act’s special procedure is triggered even where the investigation was carried out by the State police rather than by the National Investigation Agency itself.
2. A statutory appeal ousts the inherent jurisdiction. Because the Act provides a dedicated appellate remedy, the High Court held that an “application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS is not maintainable against the summoning order and refusal order of discharge.” The Court observed that “an appeal would lie under Section 21(1) of the Act, 2008.”
The Statutory Remedy — Section 21 NIA Act
Section 21(1) of the NIA Act provides that, “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.” The appeal is heard by a Bench of two Judges (Section 21(2)), and Section 21(5) prescribes a 30-day limitation period, extendable up to 90 days for sufficient cause. Being a self-contained appellate channel, it displaces resort to the inherent power for orders that fall within its reach.
Takeaway
The maintainability bar turns on the offence, not the investigator. Because Sections 121-A, 153-A and 295-A IPC are Scheduled Offences, the NIA Act’s special procedure — including the Section 21 appeal — governed even though the State police, and not the NIA, conducted the investigation. An accused who assumes the ordinary CrPC/BNSS quashing route survives simply because the case was a State-police probe misreads the trigger: a Section 482 / 528 BNSS petition against a Special Court’s refusal to discharge or its cognisance order is not maintainable, and the appeal under Section 21(1) is the route.
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — report of the judgment
- Verdictum — Mohd. Faizan v. State of UP (2026:AHC-LKO:20344)
- Law Trend — case report
- Section 21, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — bare text (Indian Kanoon)
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.