The Supreme Court upheld the registration of FIRs against two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers accused of misconduct, intimidation, and abuse of power. The Court clarified that even officers entrusted with the responsibility of investigation cannot claim immunity when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed. It significantly observed that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated".
Brief Facts:
The matter arose from writ petitions filed in 2001 and 2004 by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal, seeking directions for registration of FIRs against then CBI officers Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar. The allegations included illegal seizure of documents without proper records, intimidation, and coercion to withdraw complaints against senior officers. Despite a preliminary inquiry by CBI concluding that no cognizable offence was made out, the Delhi High Court in 2006 directed the Delhi Police to register FIRs and investigate the matter through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. The officers challenged this order, but their appeals before the Division Bench were dismissed, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellants:
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the complaints did not disclose cognizable offences and were barred under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. as the alleged acts were carried out in discharge of official duties. It was also submitted that the High Court erred in discarding the CBI’s preliminary inquiry report and in directing the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which usually investigates terrorism-related cases, to conduct the probe. Counsel further maintained that there was no material connecting Neeraj Kumar to the alleged misconduct.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court rejected the argument that no cognizable offence was made out, holding that allegations of abuse, coercion, and fabrication of records were “grave in nature and could not be brushed aside at the stage of a preliminary inquiry.” The Court observed that the CBI officers, being public servants, could not claim immunity if they knowingly prepared false records or misused their authority.
The Bench emphasized the settled position that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. once information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and credibility or genuineness of the allegations cannot be examined at that stage. Referring to precedents such as Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that preliminary inquiry is not a condition precedent to FIR registration in such cases.
The Court also underscored the principle that while High Courts should ordinarily discourage writ petitions under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. where alternate remedies exist, invocation of constitutional jurisdiction is justified where complaints against public officials disclose serious misconduct. Importantly, the Bench remarked, “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 decision of the Court:
Dismissing the appeals, the Apex Court affirmed the Delhi High Court’s direction for FIR registration and investigation against the officers. However, it modified the order to clarify that the probe would not be conducted by the Special Cell but by the Delhi Police through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner. The Court directed that the investigation be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, while also protecting the appellants from coercive action provided they cooperate with the investigation.
The judgment finally disposed of four appeals, upholding the High Court’s conclusion that prima facie cognizable offences were made out and that investigation was necessary to determine the culpability of the officers.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.
Case No.: S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ranjit Kumar (Sr. Adv.), R. Chandrachud (AOR), Waize Ali Noor, D. Venkata Krishna
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Dhruv Mehta (Sr. Adv.), Yashraj Singh Deora (Sr. Adv.), Anupama, P. N. Puri, AOR), Sahil Grewal, Suryaprakash V Raju (A.S.G.), R. Bala (Sr. Adv.), Mukesh Kumar Maroria (AOR), Kanu Agarwal, Udai Khanna, Sughosh Subramanyam, Balaji Srinivasan, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Annam Venkatesh, Hitarth Raja, Samrat Goswami, Shaurya Sarin, Satyarth Singh, Agrima Singh, Aryansh Shukla, Aditi Andley, Shoumik Choudhary, Arvind Kumar Sharma (AOR)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
