Supreme Court: While considering this appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Pandey, former Inspector of CBI and Neeraj Kumar, former Joint Director of the CBI (appellant officers), who challenged the decisions whereby the Delhi High Court directed the registration of FIR with the finding that prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 506, 341, 342 and 166, and Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were made out for investigation against the appellant officers; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and pointed out that the offences were alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter has not been allowed to be investigated.
The Court said that 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”.
Background:
The Respondents had filed 2 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking directions for registration of FIR against the appellant officers on deputation to the CBI, for committing offences under Sections 506, 341, 342 and 166, and Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B of the IPC.
The writ petitions were decided by the Single Judge of the High Court on 26-06-2006 but by separate orders passed in identical terms. Both the petitions were partly allowed, and directions were issued to the Delhi Police to register a case on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaints filed in 2001 and 2004 by the Respondents and to get the matter investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police by an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, uninfluenced by the findings and the observations contained in the Inquiry Report dated 26-04-2005 conducted by the Joint Director, CBI.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the High Court, both the appellant officers preferred separate Letters Patent Appeals (LPA) before the Division Bench of the High Court. The said LPAs were dismissed on 13-03-2019 on the ground of maintainability.
Counsel for the appellant officers contended that appellants, argued that the information/complaint submitted by the Respondents did not make out a cognizable offence for enabling the Court to direct for the registration of the FIR. The High Court could not have directed for the registration of the FIR as the procedure laid down by the various decisions of Supreme Court was not followed before approaching the High Court. It was further submitted by the appellant officers that, the in preliminary inquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI, it was reported that no cognizable offence was made out for the purpose of investigation; therefore, it was not open for the High Court to have substituted its own finding and to direct for the registration of the FIR.
Per contra, counsels representing the Respondents pressed an application for the impleading the CBI contending that, as the preliminary inquiry was conducted by an officer of the CBI and the case involves allegations against the officers of the CBI; therefore, the CBI is a proper party so as to defend the inquiry report and its officers.
Court’s Assessment and Directions:
Taking note of the chequered history of the present case, the Court clarified that it would not enter into the question of maintainability of the LPAs. The Court further noted that the delay of more than 12 years in challenging the judgment and orders of the Single Judge, has been explained taking the ground that the appellant officers were bona fide pursuing their LPAs before the Division Bench of the High Court and once it was held that the LPAs were not maintainable, they decided to challenge the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge before the Supreme Court.
The Court further pointed out that that the CBI did not independently challenge the orders of the High Court. Moreover, the CBI is not the party actually aggrieved by the direction given by the High Court for the registration of the FIR against the appellant officers. It is the officers who are aggrieved in their personal capacity and not the institution to which they are on deputation. It is, therefore, for the appellant officers to defend themselves by taking appropriate legal remedies. Furthermore, the preliminary report of the CBI was not under challenge, therefore, the contention that CBI has to support the report of its officer, cannot not appreciated. Therefore, the Court did not deem it necessary to permit impleadment of the CBI.
Perusing the impugned judgments of the Single Judge Bench, the Court noted that the appellant officers of the CBI in the dock had committed irregularities, if not illegality in discharge of their official duties and are prima facie guilty of the commission of the offences as alleged. This was clearly reflected from the averments contained in the complaints and the petitions. Both the officers had acted in connivance, and it was alleged that one of the officers had acted at the behest of the Senior Officer. “The question whether Vinod Kumar Pandey acted on the advice or behest of Neeraj Kumar or whether they were in connivance, is a matter of fact which has to be Investigated”.
The Court further stated that the Single Judge had found that cognizable offences were prima facie made out against the appellant officers. The Court pointed out that the High Court had rejected the conclusion reached by the CBI’s enquiry officer that no offence was made out and that the allegations of abuse and coercion were unsubstantiated. It was observed that the correctness or veracity of the allegations could not have been gone into at the stage of a preliminary enquiry and that such allegations, being serious in nature, could not be brushed aside lightly. The High Court had further stated that 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 on their part are serious acts and are not capable of being ignored and therefore, investigation in the matter is necessary.
The Court explained that 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 possible cognizable offence, on the material or the allegations in the complaints.
The Court further stated that since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information. The Court pointed out that the Respondents approached the Police by means of their complaints filed in 2001 and 2004 to get the matter investigated; but as no action was purportedly taken and allegedly the police authorities expressed reluctance to entertain the complaints as it would not be proper on part of the police to investigate against the officers of the CBI. Therefore, the Respondents approached the High Court for necessary action. “Therefore, 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 further explained that registration of the FIR against the two appellant officers is not likely to cause any prejudice to them. They will have the right to participate in the investigation to establish that they have not committed any offence, as alleged. The Court stated that it would however, not be a prudent exercise at this stage to scuttle the registration of the FIR or the investigation, when the High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers had opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI.
Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court and modified the same. However, the Court clarified that since the Special Cell of the Delhi Police is supposed to investigate the matters concerning terrorism, upon registration of the FIR in the present case, the investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police itself but by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.
The Court further permitted that I.O. to treat the inquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI as a preliminary inquiry, and to look into it, if necessary, during the investigation, but not to treat it as conclusive. The I.O. 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 orders or by the Supreme Court and shall conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months as the matter is quite old.
The Court further directed the appellant officers to join the investigation and to cooperate with the I.O. by appearing before him, as and when called upon. 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.
[Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1951, decided on 10-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. Mr. D. Venkata Krishna, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anupama, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Sahil Grewal, Adv. Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sarin, Adv. Mr. Satyarth Singh, Adv. Ms. Agrima Singh, Adv. Mr. Aryansh Shukla, Adv. Aditi Andley, Adv. Mr. Shoumik Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
