Supreme Court Directs Registration of FIRs Against Two CBI Officers and Orders Probe by Delhi Police ACP-Rank Officer

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging Delhi High Court orders that had directed registration of First Information Reports on complaints alleging offences in the course of CBI investigations. The appeals arose from writ petitions and subsequent Letters Patent Appeals relating to complaints lodged by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal, and contested the High Court’s direction to register FIRs and to order investigation.

The Court upheld the High Court’s exercise of discretion to order registration of FIRs while framing its intervention as limited and protective of the investigative process. The Court explained that the High Court’s findings were to be treated as prima facie only and should not foreclose the Investigating Officer’s independent role. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court reiterated that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done,” and noted that the material on record showed that the officers had, prima facie, “committed irregularities, if not illegality in discharge of their official duties and [were] prima facie guilty of the commission of the offences as alleged.” The Court therefore refused to quash the High Court directions but modified the investigatory arrangements.

Background The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed under Article 226/Section 482 seeking directions to register FIRs against Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, officers on deputation to the CBI, for offences including Sections 166, 218, 463, 465, 469, 506, 341, 342 and 120-B IPC, arising from seizures and alleged coercive acts while discharging official duties. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 26.06.2006 partly allowed both petitions and directed the Delhi Police to register cases and have them investigated by the Special Cell by an officer not below ACP rank, rejecting the CBI preliminary inquiry report which had found no cognizable offence. The appellants’ Letters Patent Appeals were later dismissed on maintainability grounds; the Supreme Court heard the appeals on merits after condoning delay.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the complaints did not disclose cognizable offences, that the CBI preliminary inquiry negatived such offences, and that the High Court should not have recorded a conclusive finding leaving nothing for the Investigating Officer. The respondents, supported by the Additional Solicitor General, urged impleadment of the CBI and reliance on the High Court’s findings. The Supreme Court declined to implead the CBI, held that the High Court’s conclusion was a prima facie view, and followed precedents including Lalita Kumari, Ramesh Kumari and recent authorities on investigation of public servants and mandatory FIR registration where cognizable offences were prima facie disclosed.

The Court directed that the FIRs stand registered and that investigation be conducted by the Delhi Police by an officer of not less than Assistant Commissioner of Police rank; it permitted the CBI preliminary inquiry to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the probe but not as conclusive. The appellants were ordered to cooperate with the investigation; no coercive steps, including arrest, would be taken if they cooperated and appeared when called, unless custodial interrogation became necessary. The Court asked for the investigation to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within three months. Two SLPs were disposed of and two appeals were partly allowed to the extent of modifying High Court directions as above.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1095; Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7900, 7897 of 2019 and D. Nos. 10495, 10508 of 2019 Case Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors. (and connected appeals) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Counsel