'Those who investigate must also be probed': Supreme Court orders FIR against ex-Delhi top cop

The case relates to an incident in 2001 when Kumar was posted as a joint director in the CBI and alleges fabrication of documents in a case.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an order for lodging an FIR against the then Joint Director CBI, Neeraj Kumar, who retired as Delhi Police Commissioner, and another officer.

The two face allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Aggarwal, brother of an IRS officer to withdraw a complaint against the senior IPS officer.

Emphasising that it is cardinal in law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, ''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.''

Upholding the Delhi High Court's 2006 order, the court noted the offence was alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated.

Holding that it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, and the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information, the court found no good reason to interfere with a discretion exercised by the high court in ordering investigation into the matter.

"At best, we can say that the opinion expressed by the high court in regard to commission of the cognisable offences is only a prima facie opinion and has to be treated as such,'' the bench said.

The court felt it would be dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI.

Considering a challenge to the HC's order by Kumar, retired IPS officer and then CBI Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey, the court opined that the registration of the FIR against the two officers is not likely to cause any prejudice to them. They will have the right to participate in the investigation to establish that they have not committed any offence.

"It would, however, not be a prudent exercise at this stage to scuttle the registration of the FIR or the investigation, when the high court in exercise of its constitutional powers had opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI,'' the bench said.

The court noted complainants Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal approached the police authorities but no action was taken on their complaints as the police expressed reluctance on the ground that it would not be proper on their part to investigate against the officers of the CBI, forcing the complainants to approach the high court.

The high court had noted that both the officers had acted in connivance and if Pandey had acted at the behest of Kumar, it was required to be investigated.

Upon consideration of the material on record including the inquiry report of April 26, 2005 of the Joint Director of CBI, the HC found that cognizable offences were prima facie made out against the officers of the CBI.

It was alleged that Pandey had summoned Vijay Aggarwal on June 7, 2001 and June 11, 2001 in clear derogation of a bail order of November 27, 2000 passed by the Special Judge, which prima facie indicated a mala fide and malicious exercise of authority.

The high court held that the allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Aggarwal to ensure withdrawal of his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s complaint against Kumar, were serious and not unfounded. It said that such conduct was grave in nature and prima facie disclosed the commission of cognisable offences under IPC.