The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Delhi High Court directive ordering the registration of FIRs against former CBI Joint Director Neeraj Kumar and Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey in connection with a 2000 incident.
The court observed that it was important for public trust in the system that investigating officers themselves be subject to scrutiny when required.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and P. B. Varale noted that a straightforward reading of the Delhi High Court’s June 26, 2006 judgment indicated that the CBI officials in question had engaged in irregularities, and possibly illegality, while carrying out their duties. The bench added that the officers appeared prima facie liable for the offences alleged against them.
The apex court said, “This is clearly reflected from the averments contained in the complaints and the petitions. Both officers have acted in connivance, and it is alleged that one of the officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey, had acted at the behest of the senior officer, Neeraj Kumar. 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.”
On the petitions of Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal, the High Court issued its ruling. Saini's plea claimed procedural irregularities, intimidation, and abuse of authority during document seizures by the officers on deputation to the CBI during the relevant period, while Aggarwal accused the two officers of forcing him to drop a complaint his brother had filed against Kumar. Kumar, who retired in 2013, also served as Delhi Police Commissioner, Indian Express reported.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had found the accusations of abuse, intimidation, threats, and use of vulgar language against Vijay Aggarwal with the intent to force the withdrawal of his brother’s complaint to be serious and not baseless. The High Court had also noted that such conduct appeared grave and, prima facie, disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under the IPC.
Although the CBI had previously carried out a preliminary enquiry and concluded that no offence was made out, dismissing the allegations as unsubstantiated, the High Court had ruled that the truthfulness of the charges could not be determined at the enquiry stage. Given their seriousness, the court said, the allegations could not be dismissed casually.
The Supreme Court further remarked that Aggarwal and Saini had turned to the High Court only after the police refused to register their FIRs. It stated that once the High Court, as a constitutional authority, had exercised its discretion in directing registration of FIRs against the officers after finding prima facie grounds, there was no justification for interfering with that decision.
At the same time, the apex court clarified that the High Court’s views on the existence of cognizable offences were only preliminary and should not constrain the investigating officer’s discretion during the actual probe.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, writing for the bench, pointed out that the alleged offences dated back to 2000 and had still not been investigated. Allowing such a case to remain unexamined, especially when officers on deputation to the CBI were implicated, would amount to a failure of justice. He emphasised that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
While the High Court had ordered the investigation to be handled by the Delhi Police Special Cell, the Supreme Court directed that the probe should be carried out by the Delhi Police itself, specifically by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.