Back
Six CBI Officers Face Criminal Complaint for False 'Correspondence Underway' Statement:
has directed the initiation of criminal complaint proceedings against six officers of the for allegedly making a false statement in a reply filed before a trial court.
Justice Madhu Jain, in a judgment dated October 6, 2026, set aside the order of the that had declined to proceed under . The Court found a basis for allegations under Sections 191 read with 193 (false evidence) and Section 209 (false claim) of the .
The case revolves around a reply filed by the CBI on August 2, 2016, in response to an application by former officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal seeking the return of documents seized during a disproportionate assets probe. In that reply, the CBI stated that “correspondence with the administrative Ministry with respect to further legal action in the matter is under way.” This assertion was used to oppose the immediate return of documents, claiming they might be needed in further proceedings.
However, the High Court found that as of August 2, 2016, no such correspondence was actually underway between the CBI and the . Instead, what existed was an internal deliberation within the CBI about whether to seek reconsideration of an earlier opinion from the , which had advised against challenging the High Court's 2016 judgment invalidating the sanction for Aggarwal's prosecution.
The Altered Draft That Exposed the Claim
The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the contemporaneous file notings and successive drafts of the CBI’s reply. An initial draft (Draft 2) prepared by Inspector Sushil Dewan explicitly mentioned that the DoPT had turned down the CBI’s proposal for filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). This statement was struck out and replaced with a handwritten insertion stating that correspondence with the administrative Ministry was “under way.” The Court noted that this alteration “changed the very factual position sought to be presented before the Court.”
The judgment identifies the six officers involved in the preparation, vetting, and filing of the reply: Sushil Dewan, then-HoZ Vineet Vinayak, then-HoB Amit Kumar, SP Raman Tyagi, SP Prem Kumar Gautam, and . The Court found that each officer knew or ought to have known the true position and participated in placing an incorrect statement before the court.
Legal Principles Applied
The High Court examined the framework of Section 340 CrPC, emphasizing that the threshold for directing a complaint is the appearance of an offence falling under , coupled with the of such action in the . Citing the Supreme Court decision in , the Court clarified that is assessed with reference to the effect on the , not merely on the prejudice caused to an individual litigant.
The Court rejected the Special Judge’s reasoning that the absence of prejudice to Aggarwal (since his application for release of documents was initially allowed) and the subsequent additional reply filed by the CBI on August 9, 2016, were sufficient to negate the need for action. “The truth of the statement made on that date must be assessed with reference to the position that existed at that particular time,” Justice Jain observed.
“” for Allegations
Applying the principles from and Pritish v. State of Maharashtra , the Court held that the successive drafts, file notings, and the signed reply “cumulatively provide a for the allegations.” The Court stated that a further preliminary inquiry was unnecessary since the documentary record had already been examined.
“The concerned statement was made on behalf of the prosecuting agency concerning a matter within its own knowledge and was relied upon to secure an order against the appellant’s request,” the Court noted. “A deliberate substitution of that account with a directly affects the fairness of the adjudicatory process.”
The Decision and Its Implications
On the question of delay, the Court pointed out that Aggarwal had moved his Section 340 application promptly in August 2016 and the matter had remained under judicial consideration since. The relevant documentary material was preserved, and “no loss of any such material that would render a fair inquiry impracticable” was identified.
The High Court thus set aside the Special Judge’s order of October 25, 2025, and allowed the criminal appeal. It directed the Special Judge to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam, and Md. Azad for offences under Section 191 read with 193 IPC and Section 209 IPC. The complaint is to be transmitted to the jurisdictional , within four weeks.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the stage of directing the complaint and that the competent Magistrate shall proceed independently and without influence from this judgment.
