The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has upheld a Delhi High Court judgment directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar. A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale affirmed that the allegations against the officers prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offenses warranting investigation, pointedly observing, “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.”
Case Background
The matter originated from two separate writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court in 2001 by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal. The petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought the registration of FIRs against Vinod Kumar Pandey, then an Inspector of CBI, and Neeraj Kumar, then a Joint Director of CBI.
Sheesh Ram Saini’s complaint dated July 5, 2001, alleged offenses including forgery and criminal conspiracy, while Vijay Aggarwal’s complaint dated February 23, 2004, alleged wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On June 26, 2006, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court partly allowed both petitions, directing the Delhi Police to register cases and have them investigated by its Special Cell. The High Court found that prima facie cognizable offenses were made out. The two officers challenged this decision, but their appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench in 2019 as not maintainable, leading them to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar argued that the complaints did not make out any cognizable offense and that a CBI preliminary inquiry had already found no case for investigation. He contended that the High Court erred by recording a definitive finding that would prejudice the Investigating Officer.
The CBI, seeking to be impleaded, argued through Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju that the complaints were barred by Section 197 Cr.P.C., as the officers’ actions were performed in the discharge of their official duties.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court proceeded to hear the matter on its merits, condoning a delay of over 12 years. The bench declined the CBI’s impleadment, noting the aggrieved parties were the officers in their personal capacity, not the institution.
The Court held that the High Court was correct in its prima facie assessment. It noted the High Court’s finding that the seizure of documents without a timely seizure memo was not a mere “procedural irregularity” but an act attracting penal provisions. It also highlighted the observation that one officer had summoned a complainant in “clear derogation of a bail order,” indicating a “mala fide and malicious exercise of authority.”
Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized that an internal preliminary inquiry is not conclusive and cannot “oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion.” Citing precedents, the bench reiterated that if a complaint discloses a cognizable offense, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR and that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Final Decision
While upholding the core direction to register an FIR, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order:
- Investigating Agency: The investigation will be conducted by the Delhi Police, but not its Special Cell. An officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police will lead the probe.
- Preliminary Inquiry Report: The Investigating Officer may look into the CBI’s internal report but shall not treat it as conclusive.
- Conduct of Investigation: The probe must be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, and be uninfluenced by any judicial observations.
- Cooperation of Appellants: The officers must cooperate with the investigation. No coercive steps, including arrest, shall be taken unless custodial interrogation is deemed necessary by the Investigating Officer.
With these modifications, the appeals were disposed of, paving the way for a formal police investigation into the decade-old allegations.
