Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1665

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11740 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019)
With
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11741 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. of 2025) (D.No. 10495 of 2019)
WITH
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Vijay Aggarwal & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11742 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7897 of 2019)
AND
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Vijay Aggarwal & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11743 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. of 2025) (D. No. 10508 of 2019)
Decided On : 10-09-2025

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.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2) Genuineness or credibility of information is not the condition precedent for registration of FIR.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154 and 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal prosecution of CBI officers – High Court(s) should discourage writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where alternative remedies are available – Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Since, it is duty of Police to register FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, police is not required to go into genuineness and credibility of said information – Genuineness or credibility of information is not the condition precedent for registration of FIR – If Constitutional Court has exercised its discretion in entertaining petitions and directing for registration of FIR against two officers, on being satisfied that commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them, no good reason to interfere with such discretion – Registration of FIR against two officers is not likely to cause any prejudice to them – They will have right to participate in investigation to establish that they have not committed any offence, as alleged – Appellants directed to join investigation and to cooperate with I.O. (Paras 29, 32, 34, 35 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Two petitions being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 675 of 2001 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.738 of 2001 under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure2, 1973 came to be filed by one Vijay Aggarwal and other by one Sheesh Ram Saini respectively, seeking directions for registration of First Information Report against the two officers on deputation to 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 Code, 1860, as alleged in the writ petitions respectively.
Findings of Court:
Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry before FIR is permissible in such a situation; however, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates necessity of an inquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain facts disclosing cognizable offence, if any.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.

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, as alleged in the writ petitions respectively.

6. The aforesaid two writ petitions were decided by the Single Judge of the High Court on 26.06.2006 but by separate order(s) passed in identical terms. Both the petitions were partly allowed and directions were issued to the Delhi Police to register a case on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint dated 05.07.2001 lodged by Sheesh Ram Saini with PS Lodhi Colony and complaint dated 23.02.2004 addressed to Commissioner of Police, Delhi by Vijay Aggarwal respectively, and to get the matter investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police by an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, uninfluenced by the findings and the observations contained in the Inquiry Report dated 26.04.2005 conducted by the Joint Director, CBI.

7. In short, the writ petitions were partly allowed with the direction to register the FIR with the finding that prima facie cognizable offences are made out for investigation against the appellant-officers.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court dated 26.06.2006, both the officers of the CBI preferred separate Letters Patent Appeal(s) ⁵[Hereinafter referred to as ‘LPA’] before the Division Bench of the High Court. The said LPAs were dismissed on 13.03.2019 on the ground of maintainability.

9. Out of the present four appeals, two appeals [D.No.10495 of 2019 and D.No.10508 of 2019] are against the order(s) of the learned Single Judge dated 26.06.2006 partly allowing the petitions, and other two appeals [S.L.P.(C) No. 7900 of 2019 and S.L.P.(C) No. 7897 of 2019] are against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 13.03.2019 dismissing the LPAs as not maintainable.

10. We had made it clear to the parties in the very beginning that we would not enter into the question of maintainability of the LPAs so as to adjudicate the appeals arising out of their dismissal for the reason that we would consider the correctness of the judgment and order(s) dated 26.06.2006 on merits as would have been done in the LPAs by the Division Bench. The counsel for the parties agreed and proceeded to advance arguments accordingly on merits.

11. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to delay of more than 12 years in challenging the judgment and order(s) of the Single Judge dated 26.06.2006.

12. The said delay has been explained taking the ground that the appellants were bona fide pursuing their LPAs before the Division Bench of the High Court and once they realized that the LPAs are not maintainable and they have been dismissed as not maintainable, they decided to challenge the judgment and order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge before the Supreme Court.

13. In view of the above explanation, though technically, pursuing th