Form No. J.(2) Item No. DL/1 adeb - AR (CT) Ct. No. 05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICATION APPELLATE SIDE Before: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA W.P.A. 4652 of 2012 IA No. CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 3593of 2016), CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 8044 of 2016), CAN 3 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 10026 of 2018), CAN 14 of 2026, CAN 15 of 2026 Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Trisha Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Chetan Kabra, Adv. Ms. Smriti Sinha, Adv. For the CBI : Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 27.08.2026 Judgment on: : 27.08.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J: 1. Written note filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2 2. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing petitioners and Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI). 3. Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned senior advocate representing petitioners prays for extension of interim order passed earlier on 24th March, 2023. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that primarily an order was passed on 16th March, 2012 on the writ petition by a coordinate bench. By the said order dated 16th March, 2012 CBI was granted liberty to proceed with the investigation of criminal prosecution but they were restrained from submitting any charge sheet/final report without leave of the Court. Issue travelled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and an order was passed on 27th August, 2018 on Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4654 of 2018. Relevant part of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27th August, 2018 runs infra:- “This being the case, the drill of the said order has to be followed. Despite the fact that Shri Maninder Singh, learned ASG tells us that a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance order issued despite this order, we set- aside the cognizance order and direct the appellants to go back to the High 3 Court and apprise it of the fact that a charge-sheet has since been filed and get permission for formally filing the same. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 4. Vide said order dated 27th August, 2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court based on submission made on behalf of CBI decided to set aside order of CBI Court thereby taking cognizance of offence and directed CBI to go back to High Court and apprise of the fact that charge sheet was since filed to take permission for filing of said charge sheet. 5. Pursuant to said order dated 27th August, 2018 CBI filed one application being CAN 10026 of 2018 thereby sought for permission to file charge sheet. Coordinate bench while disposing of application of CBI permitted CBI to file charge sheet. Vide said order dated 27th September, 2022 CBI was also directed to serve copy of charge sheet along with all documents to the learned advocate for the petitioners. 6. Subsequently, CBI re-submitted charge sheet on 18th March, 2023 before the learned Judge (in-charge), Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta based on which court took cognizance of offence. 4 7. Writ petitioner preferred one Criminal Revisional Application CRR 1112 of 2023 (M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Kolkata) questioning order dated 18th March, 2023 passed by learned Judge (in- charge), Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta in Special (CBI) Case No. 02 of 2018. 8. While dismissing aforesaid Criminal Revisional Application coordinate bench passed following order:- “Accordingly, CBI filed charge-sheet in the trial Court on the basis of leave granted in WPA 4652 of 2012 vide order dated 27th September, 2022. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction to the effect that the “drill of the said order has to be followed” was substantially complied with by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have prayed for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 18th March, 2023 passed by the learned Judge (In charge), Special (CBI) Court No. 1, Calcutta on the basis of the order dated 16th March, 2012 passed in WPA 4652 of 2012. The said WPA 4652 of 2012 is pending before a Coordinate Bench. The said Bench granted leave to the CBI to file charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed and cognizance of offence was taken and notice was issued against the petitioners. 5 In view of such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the instant revision. No order passed by either High Court or the Supreme Court was disobeyed by the trial judge.” 9. From the relevant part of order of coordinate bench dated 24th March, 2023 passed in criminal revisional application it transpires that challenge thrown by the petitioners against filing of charge sheet before the CBI Court was not interfered with and it was recorded in the said order that charge sheet was filed and cognizance of offence was taken and notice was issued to the petitioner. 10. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of petitioners that order passed by the coordinate bench while disposing of Criminal Revisional Application on 24th March, 2023 was based on order dated 27th September, 2022 passed by a coordinate bench on the writ petition thereby granting liberty to CBI to file charge sheet after submission of copy of charge sheet along with all documents to the learned advocate for the petitioners. According to petitioner on 24th March, 2023 another order was passed by the coordinate bench on the writ petition and connected application being CAN 4 of 2023 whereby fact was taken into 6 consideration that charge sheet was filed by CBI before the CBI Court and not before the High Court, consequently operation of charge sheet submitted by CBI on 18th March, 2023 was stayed. 11. Considering chronology of facts and orders passed by different Courts including Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time this Court needs to consider the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27th August, 2018 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to CBI to obtain formal permission with regard to filing of charge sheet and order by which cognizance of offence was taken was set aside. 12. Taking note of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27th August, 2018 and subsequent order passed by a coordinate bench on 24th March, 2023 on Criminal Revisional Application wherein filing of charge sheet by CBI was questioned, today this Court does not find any impediment to permit CBI to take steps accordingly based on filing of charge sheet on 18th March, 2023. 13. Order passed by coordinate bench on 24th March, 2023 on CAN 4 of 2023 is modified in consideration of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27th 7 August, 2018; as per said order dated 27th August, 2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court a formal permission was required to be obtained for filing charge sheet. 14. It needs to be recorded herein order passed by the coordinate bench on Criminal Revisional Application on 24th March, 2023 attained finality since it is submitted on behalf of petitioners that said order dated 24th March, 2023 was not assailed by preferring appeal. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion it appears that charge sheet was filed on 18th March, 2023 and subsequently cognizance of offence was taken. 16. Challenge might have been thrown by the petitioners questioning steps taken by CBI relating to filing of charge sheet but in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761 (Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) writ petition is not maintainable after filing of charge sheet and taking cognizance of offence. This Court is not considering a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India neither a petition under Sections 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. Once judicial 8 order taking cognizance of offence has intervened in the proceeding and such steps received imprimatur by virtue of order passed by coordinate bench dated 24th March, 2023 passed on Criminal Revisional Application which has attained finality, present writ petition is not maintainable. 17. Hence, writ petition stands disposed of permitting CBI to take steps in accordance with law. 18. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps, if so advised. 19. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate representing petitioner prays for stay of operation of this order which is opposed by Ms. Alam, learned advocate representing CBI. Such prayer made on behalf of petitioner is considered and rejected. 20. Applications, if any pending, are also disposed of. 21. Parties to act on server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)