Supreme Court Upholds FIRs Against Ex-CBI Officers | Delhi Police to Probe Alleged Intimidation and Forgery, Says Even Investigators May Face Investigation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the direction of the Delhi High Court to register First Information Reports against Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, and Vinod Kumar Pandey, the then Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The complaints, dating back to 2000, alleged intimidation, improper seizure of documents, falsification of records, and forgery during their deputation to the agency. The Court directed the Delhi Police to investigate the matter through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police and ordered that no coercive steps, including arrest, be taken against the officers if they cooperate with the proceedings unless custodial interrogation is found necessary.
The controversy originated from two writ petitions filed in 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. One petition was instituted by Vijay Aggarwal and the other by Sheesh Ram Saini. Both sought judicial directions for registration of criminal cases against two officers deputed to the Central Bureau of Investigation—Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey and Joint Director Neeraj Kumar.
The petitioners alleged offences under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 506, 341, 342, 166, 218, 463, 465, 469, and 120-B. The complaints asserted that the officers had abused their official authority, intimidated private individuals, and prepared false or incorrect records. One of the complaints, dated 5 July 2001, was lodged at the Lodhi Colony Police Station, while another dated 23 February 2004 was addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
On 26 June 2006, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court disposed of both petitions by separate but identically worded orders. The High Court directed the Delhi Police to register FIRs on the basis of the allegations and to entrust investigation to the Special Cell through an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. The Court specifically instructed that the inquiry report dated 26 April 2005 prepared by the Joint Director of the CBI should not influence the investigation.
The appellants—Pandey and Kumar—challenged these directions by filing Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. On 13 March 2019, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals on grounds of maintainability, holding that the challenge could not proceed in that form. Consequently, four civil appeals were instituted before the Supreme Court: two against the Single Judge’s 2006 orders and two against the Division Bench’s 2019 decision.
The appellants submitted that the complaints did not disclose cognizable offences warranting registration of FIRs. They contended that the High Court had improperly pre-judged the matter by recording findings that should have been left for the Investigating Officer. Further, they argued that the inquiry conducted by the Joint Director of the CBI had already concluded that no cognizable offence was made out, and hence no further investigation was warranted. Another ground urged was that entrusting the matter to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, which ordinarily handles terrorism cases, was inappropriate.
The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, pressed for impleadment of the CBI in order to defend the inquiry report and its officers. They argued that the complaints were barred by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the acts were performed in discharge of official duties, and also by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. They raised limitation as an additional defence.
The Supreme Court considered a preliminary objection regarding the twelve-year delay in challenging the Single Judge’s orders. The Court condoned the delay on the ground that the appellants had been bona fide pursuing their remedies before the High Court, and thereafter chose to approach the Supreme Court once the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Bench recorded that “the officers of the CBI in the dock have committed irregularities, if not illegality in discharge of their official duties and are prima facie guilty of the commission of the offences as alleged.”
In relation to the seizure of documents on 26 April 2000, the Court noted: “The allegation that the documents were seized… without preparation of the seizure memo stood substantiated even in the inquiry report, which recorded that the memo of seizure was prepared only on 27.04.2000 and not at the time of seizure.” The Court concluded that “the preparation of seizure memo in the facts and circumstances of the case was not in accordance with the CBI Crime Manual and attracted penal provisions of Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B IPC.”
On the allegations by Vijay Aggarwal, the judgment recorded: “V.K. Pandey had summoned Vijay Aggarwal… in clear derogation of a bail order… which prima facie indicated a mala fide and malicious exercise of authority.” The Court added: “The allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats… were serious and not unfounded.”
Rejecting the reliance placed on the CBI’s internal inquiry report, the Court observed: “The correctness or veracity of the allegations could not have been gone into at the stage of a preliminary enquiry… Such allegations, being serious in nature, could not be brushed aside lightly.”
The Bench clarified that public servants cannot escape accountability for false or forged records: “CBI officers, being public servants, cannot claim immunity if they knowingly prepare false or incorrect records during the course of seizure or abuse their official position. Such acts… are serious acts and are not capable of being ignored.”
The Court reinforced that under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the police are bound to register an FIR where a cognizable offence is disclosed: “If the information provided to the police or the preliminary report discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the police is duty bound… to register an FIR without any delay.”
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order: “upon registration of the FIR in the case at hand, the investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police itself but by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.”
On the role of the CBI’s earlier inquiry, the Court stated: “treating the inquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI as a preliminary inquiry, we permit the same to be looked into, if necessary, by the I.O. during the investigation by him, but not to treat it as conclusive.” It further directed that the Investigating Officer “would conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any finding or observation made by the High Court in the impugned order(s) or by this Court hereinabove and shall conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months as the matter is quite old.”
“The appellants are directed to join the investigation and to cooperate with the I.O. by appearing before him, as and when called upon.” Safeguards against undue coercion were provided: “In the event they join the investigation and appear before the I.O. regularly, no coercive steps shall be taken against them, including that of arrest, until and unless the I.O. records satisfaction that custodial interrogation at any stage is necessary.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of two appeals and partly allowed two others by modifying the Delhi High Court’s 2006 orders. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1095
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7900/2019, 7897/2019, D. No. 10495/2019, D. No. 10508/2019
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
