A reply filed before a Special Judge went through several drafts, and the Delhi High Court has found that the changes made along the way give reasonable ground to infer, prima facie, that the factual position was altered. It has ordered a criminal complaint against six CBI officers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Holding that the record gave a reasonable basis for a prima facie inference, the Delhi High Court has directed a Special Judge to file a written criminal complaint against six CBI officers over an allegedly altered reply in a case brought by an IRS officer [Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan and Others].
Justice Madhu Jain allowed the criminal appeal (CRLA 289/2026), which challenged the Special Judge’s refusal to start proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The officers named are Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad.
From draft to filing
The appellant is IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. He alleged that the CBI made false statements in its reply of August 2, 2016, on its correspondence with the administrative Ministry about seized documents.
The Court noted from the record that the early drafts correctly said the Department of Personnel and Training had rejected a proposal. A later handwritten insertion replaced that with wording suggesting correspondence was still under way.
“This concerned alteration changed the very factual position sought to be presented before the Court.”
Preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, the Court held, together gave a reasonable basis for the prima facie inference that the officers took part in advancing a claim at odds with the actual position.
What happens next
The Special Judge must file the written complaint, to be sent within four weeks to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari, for the alleged offences under Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.
The view taken is prima facie only. None of the officers has been tried or convicted, the allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no final view on guilt, and each of them is presumed innocent.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan Police Probing Own Officials for Illegal Delhi Arrests, Tells Delhi High Court
The wider point
Courts rely on investigating agencies to file accurate statements, and Section 340 is the route when the record suggests otherwise. Here the High Court looked at how the filing was drafted, and not only at its final text, in deciding whether proceedings should follow.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan and Others [CRLA 289/2026]
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026