Even investigators must face investigation: Supreme Court allows probe against CBI officers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash the first information reports (FIRs) against two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers accused of misconduct during their tenure [Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale upheld directions of the Delhi High Court to register criminal cases against the officers, noting that the complaints disclosed prima facie cognisable offences.The Court said it was “high time that sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated.”.The case stemmed from two petitions filed in 2001 by a businessman, Vijay Aggarwal, and another individual, Sheesh Ram Saini. Both alleged intimidation, threats, illegal seizure of documents and abuse of authority by CBI officers Vinod Kumar Pandey, then an Inspector, and Neeraj Kumar, then a Joint Director. They sought registration of FIRs against the officers under provisions of the Indian Penal Code including criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, forgery and conspiracy. .A single-judge of the Delhi High Court in 2006 partly allowed the petitions and directed the Delhi Police to register cases based on the complaints. The Court noted that one complaint alleged documents were seized on April 26, 2000 without preparing a seizure memo, which was only drawn up the next day. The High Court found that such conduct violated the CBI Crime Manual and prima facie attracted offences of forgery and falsification of records.In another instance, the High Court found that one of the complainants had been summoned by Pandey despite being on bail and the same was in violation of a court order. The allegations included coercion, abuse and pressure to withdraw a complaint against senior officer Neeraj Kumar. The High Court held that such conduct could not be brushed aside as a mere procedural lapse.The officers challenged the single-judge decision but their appeals before a Division Bench were dismissed in 2019 on maintainability. They then approached the Supreme Court..Before the Supreme Court, their counsel argued that no cognisable offence was disclosed, that prior sanction was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the High Court had erred in overruling a preliminary enquiry by the CBI which found no wrongdoing.The Court rejected these contentions and ruled that the High Court’s intervention was justified when police authorities themselves had been reluctant to act against CBI officers.“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,” it noted. .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.Supreme Court.The Court clarified that the opinion of the High Court on the commission of offences was only prima facie and the investigating officer (IO) would independently decide the course of the case after collecting evidence. The IO could submit either a chargesheet or a closure report.The Bench further directed that the investigation should be carried out by an officer of the Delhi Police not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner rather than by the Special Cell which typically handles terrorism cases. The Court also allowed the IO to consider the earlier CBI enquiry report but only as a preliminary input and not as conclusive..The officers were ultimately directed to cooperate with the investigation, with protection from arrest so long as they joined proceedings and custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary..The appellant-officers were represented by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar along with advocates R Chandrachud, Waize Ali Noor and D Venkata Krishna.The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, Senior Advocates Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora and R Bala along with advocates Anupama, Sahil Grewal, Kanu Agarwal, Udai Khanna, Sughosh Subramanyam, Balaji Srinivasan, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Annam Venkatesh, Hitarth Raja, Samrat Goswami, Shaurya Sarin, Satyarth Singh, Agrima Singh, Aryansh Shukla, Aditi Andley, Shoumik Choudhary, PN Puri, Mukesh Maroria and Arvind Kumar Sharma. .[Read Judgment]