'Sometimes Those Who Investigate Must Also Be Investigated': Supreme Court Upholds Direction For FIRs Against Former CBI Officials

The Supreme Court today upheld the direction of the Delhi High Court to register FIRs against former Commissioner of Delhi Police Neeraj Kumar as well as one Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey, following complaints from 2000 alleging intimidation, falsification of records, and forgery during their deputation to CBI.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with the officers' appeals against High Court orders in writ petitions filed in 2001 by two persons seeking action against the officers. At the time of the alleged offences, Kumar and Pandey were deputed to CBI as Joint Director and Inspector respectively.

“It is trite to point out that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated. It would be dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI. It is cardinal in law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. It is high time that sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated to keep alive the faith of the public at large in the system”, the Court observed.

Petitioner Vijay Aggarwal sought registration of an FIR against the officers for allegedly coercing him to ensure withdrawal of a complaint filed by his brother against Kumar. The other petitioner Sheesh Ram Saini alleged procedural irregularities, intimidation, and misuse of authority during seizures of documents by the CBI officers.

The complaints invoked Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 166 (public servant disobeying law), 218 (public servant framing incorrect record), 463, 465, 469 (forgery), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

In 2006, a Single Judge of the High Court found that the complaints disclosed prima facie cognizable offences and directed the Delhi Police to register FIRs and investigate the matter through a Delhi Police Special Cell officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, independently of the findings in a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Joint Director of CBI on April 26, 2005.

The High Court highlighted the seriousness of the alleged offences, noting that in Saini's complaint, documents were seized on April 26, 2000, but the seizure memo was only prepared on April 27, 2000, contrary to CBI procedures.

As per Aggarwal's complaint, Pandey summoned him on June 7 and 11, 2001, in apparent violation of a bail order dated November 27, 2000, and allegedly used abusive language to pressure him to withdraw his brother's complaint against Kumar, the High Court noted.

The Single Judge disagreed with CBI's preliminary enquiry report that no offence was made out, and directed the Investigating Officer not to consider the report.

Aggrieved, the two officers filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court, which were dismissed in March 2019 on the ground of maintainability. Thus, they approached the Supreme Court through four appeals, two challenging the Single Judge's orders and two challenging the Division Bench dismissal of their LPAs.

The officers contended that the complaints did not constitute cognizable offences, that the High Court could not have directed FIR registration, and that they had acted in discharge of official duties.

They also challenged the exclusion of the CBI preliminary inquiry report and the High Court's direction for investigation by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which typically investigates terrorism cases.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for CBI sought impleadment of the CBI to defend the inquiry report. The Supreme Court observed that the CBI was not personally aggrieved by the High Court's direction to register FIRs, and had not challenged the orders. Therefore, there was no need to implead it as a party in the appeals.

The Court observed that the preliminary inquiry report cannot prevent the Court from concluding that prima facie cognizable offences exist. It relied on the recent judgment in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat which held that the genuineness of complaints need not be tested before registration of FIR when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.

“The report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR. However, such an enquiry is not ordinarily contemplated in law before registration of FIR, and hence is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, on the material or the allegations in the complaints”, the Supreme Court further observed.

The Supreme Court observed that while High Courts should discourage writ petitions where alternative remedies exist, alternative remedies do not bar the court from ordering FIR registration when a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court observed that the police must register FIRs without assessing the genuineness of the complaint.

The Court noted that the complainants had approached the police but the police allegedly did not act due to reluctance to investigate officers of the CBI.

In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there was no good reason to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in directing registration of FIRs, noting that its opinion on the commission of cognizable offences is prima facie and does not affect the independence of the investigation.

“if the Constitutional Court has exercised its discretion in entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them, we see no good reason to interfere with such discretion”, the Court opined.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders and stated that instead of the Special Cell, the investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police by an officer with the rank of at least Assistant Commissioner of Police, and that Kumar and Pandey must cooperate with the investigation. It allowed the CBI's preliminary inquiry report to be considered by the Investigating Officer, but stated that it is not conclusive.

The Court directed that the investigation should be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, given the age of the allegations. It observed that the registration of FIRs would not cause prejudice to the officers, who would have the opportunity to participate, and any closure or chargesheet could be legally challenged.

Case no. – S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019 and connected cases

Case Title – Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and connected cases

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887