Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized: The existence of an alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) The genuineness or credibility of the information is not a precondition for the registration of an FIR; the police are obligated to register an FIR if a cognizable offense appears to have been committed based on the information received (!) The police are not required to verify the credibility or genuineness of the information before registering an FIR; their duty is to act upon prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense (!) The High Court, exercising its constitutional powers, can direct the registration of an FIR if it is satisfied that a prima facie case for a cognizable offense exists, even if the initial information might be unverified or preliminary in nature (!) The registration of an FIR against officers on deputation, such as those of the CBI, does not cause prejudice to them, and they retain the right to participate in the investigation to establish their innocence (!) The investigation should be conducted by an officer of appropriate rank, and the investigation authority should be impartial, especially when the matter involves allegations against officers of a specialized agency (!) The officers involved are directed to cooperate with the investigation, and coercive measures such as arrest will not be taken unless the investigating officer records that custodial interrogation is necessary (!) The courts emphasize that justice must be both done and seen to be done, advocating for thorough investigation where allegations involve misconduct, especially when the offense pertains to the year 2000 and remains uninvestigated (!) (!) The court clarifies that exercising discretion to entertain petitions and direct FIR registration is appropriate when prima facie evidence suggests a cognizable offense, and such discretion should not be interfered with lightly (!) Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice regarding this case.

Vinod Kumar Pandey vs Seesh Ram Saini

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1665

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Vinod Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Seesh Ram Saini – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. Mr. D. Venkata Krishna, Adv.
For the 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.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The existence of an alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!)
The genuineness or credibility of the information is not a precondition for the registration of an FIR; the police are obligated to register an FIR if a cognizable offense appears to have been committed based on the information received (!)
The police are not required to verify the credibility or genuineness of the information before registering an FIR; their duty is to act upon prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense (!)
The High Court, exercising its constitutional powers, can direct the registration of an FIR if it is satisfied that a prima facie case for a cognizable offense exists, even if the initial information might be unverified or preliminary in nature (!)
The registration of an FIR against officers on deputation, such as those of the CBI, does not cause prejudice to them, and they retain the right to participate in the investigation to establish their innocence (!)
The investigation should be conducted by an officer of appropriate rank, and the investigation authority should be impartial, especially when the matter involves allegations against officers of a specialized agency (!)
The officers involved are directed to cooperate with the investigation, and coercive measures such as arrest will not be taken unless the investigating officer records that custodial interrogation is necessary (!)
The courts emphasize that justice must be both done and seen to be done, advocating for thorough investigation where allegations involve misconduct, especially when the offense pertains to the year 2000 and remains uninvestigated (!) (!)
The court clarifies that exercising discretion to entertain petitions and direct FIR registration is appropriate when prima facie evidence suggests a cognizable offense, and such discretion should not be interfered with lightly (!)

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice regarding this case.

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the parties.

4. The cases are quite simple but have a chequered history, involving the appellants, who are two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’]. One is Vinod Kumar Pandey, the then Inspector of CBI, and the other is Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director of CBI.

5. The two petitions being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 675 of 2001 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.738 of 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure²[Hereinafter referred to as’Cr.P.C.’], 1973 came to be filed by one Vijay Aggarwal and other by one Sheesh Ram Saini respectively, seeking directions for registration of First Information Report³[In short ‘FIR’] against the above two officers on deputation to the CBI, namely, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar for committing offences under Sections 506, 341, 342 and 166, and Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code⁴[In short ‘IPC’], 1860,