High Court Can Order FIR Against Officers Despite Exoneration in Preliminary Inquiry if Complaint Discloses Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court - 2025-09-11

Supreme Court Upholds FIR Against CBI Officers, Emphasizes 'Investigators Must Also Be Investigated'

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on police accountability, the Supreme Court has upheld a Delhi High Court order directing the registration of an FIR against two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers for alleged abuse of power, fabrication of records, and intimidation. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale affirmed that a preliminary inquiry report exonerating officers does not preclude a constitutional court from ordering an investigation if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offense.

The Court underscored a crucial principle of justice, stating, "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."

Case Background: A Two-Decade Legal Battle

The case originates from two writ petitions filed in the Delhi High Court in 2001 by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal. They sought the registration of an FIR against Vinod Kumar Pandey (then Inspector, CBI) and Neeraj Kumar (then Joint Director, CBI).

The allegations were serious: - Sheesh Ram Saini alleged that the officers committed offences including forgery and fabricating records (Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166, 120-B IPC) by preparing a seizure memo on April 27, 2000, for documents seized a day earlier. - Vijay Aggarwal accused the officers of wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and abuse of power (Sections 506, 341, 342, 166 IPC), claiming he was threatened and coerced to influence his brother to withdraw a complaint against Neeraj Kumar.

In 2006, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, after reviewing the complaints and a CBI preliminary inquiry report, found that cognizable offenses were prima facie made out and directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR and investigate. The officers' subsequent appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) was dismissed by a Division Bench in 2019 on grounds of maintainability, leading them to approach the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments Before the Apex Court

The appellants' counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, argued that: - The complaints did not disclose any cognizable offense. - The High Court erred by recording a definitive finding of guilt, leaving no room for the investigating officer. - A CBI preliminary inquiry had already concluded that no offense was made out.

The respondents countered that the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional powers as the police had failed to act on their complaints against high-ranking CBI officials.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court bench, while agreeing to hear the matter on merits, dismissed the CBI's attempt to be impleaded, noting that the agency had not challenged the High Court's order and that the officers were aggrieved in their personal capacity.

The Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing several key legal principles: - Duty to Register FIR: Citing precedents like Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) , the bench reiterated that if an information discloses a cognizable offense, the police are duty-bound under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to register an FIR. The "genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration." - Alternative Remedy Not a Bar: The Court affirmed that the availability of an alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 266, especially when police inaction is alleged. - Preliminary Inquiry Not Conclusive: The bench ruled that the CBI's internal inquiry report was not a conclusive document that could oust the High Court's power to assess the complaint independently. It clarified that such inquiries are not ordinarily contemplated in law before an FIR and cannot be used to scuttle an investigation.

"The report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR... and hence is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion about commission of a cognizable offence," the judgment noted.

Final Directions

While upholding the core direction to register an FIR, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order on two counts: 1. Investigating Agency: Recognizing that the Special Cell of the Delhi Police primarily deals with terrorism cases, the Court directed that the investigation be conducted by the Delhi Police, but by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 2. Use of Inquiry Report: The Court allowed the investigating officer to look into the CBI's preliminary inquiry report but clarified that it should not be treated as conclusive. The investigation must proceed uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

The Court directed the appellant officers to cooperate with the investigation and stipulated that no coercive steps, including arrest, be taken against them unless the investigating officer deems custodial interrogation necessary.

The decision concludes a major chapter in a legal saga that has spanned over two decades, reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law and that the process of justice must apply equally to all, including those entrusted with upholding it.