New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with a 2006 Delhi High Court order that had directed registration of an FIR against two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers on allegations of abuse of authority, intimidation, and procedural irregularities dating back to 2000.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Delhi High Court’s direction to register a case against Vinod Kumar Pandey (then Inspector) and Neeraj Kumar (then Joint Director), holding that the complaints by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal prima facie disclosed cognisable offences under various IPC provisions including Sections 506, 341, 342, 166, 218, 463, 465, 469 and 120-B.
Noting that the matter had been pending for over two decades without investigation, the Justice Mithal-led Bench said: “It would be a 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.”
In its judgment, the apex court noted that then CBI Inspector Pandey had allegedly summoned complainant Vijay Aggarwal in violation of a bail order, used abusive language, and tried to coerce him into withdrawing his brother’s complaint against then Joint Director Neeraj Kumar.
Further, documents were seized without a proper seizure memo, which was prepared only the next day.
Calling such conduct “grave in nature”, the Delhi High Court had said 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.
The Supreme Court modified the Delhi High Court’s direction that the probe be carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell, observing that the Special Cell ordinarily deals with terrorism-related cases. Instead, the investigation will now be conducted by a Delhi Police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.
It also protected the former CBI officers from arrest, subject to their cooperation.
“In the event they join the investigation and appear before the IO regularly, no coercive steps shall be taken against them, including that of arrest, until and unless the IO records satisfaction that custodial interrogation at any stage is necessary,” the bench directed.
It asked the Delhi Police to complete the investigation within three months.
The Supreme Court further clarified that while the preliminary enquiry report prepared may be referred to during investigation, it cannot be treated as conclusive. “The IO would conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any finding or observation made by the High Court… or by this Court hereinabove,” the apex court stated.
(IANS)
