The Supreme Court ruled that even investigators must face scrutiny, ordering an FIR against ex-Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar in a 20-year-old case involving allegations of criminal intimidation, fabrication of documents, and misuse of investigative powers.
The Supreme Court ruled that those involved in investigations must also face scrutiny, issuing an FIR against former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar in a case dating back two decades, which involves allegations of document fabrication and criminal intimidation.
The case stems from an incident in 2001 when Kumar served as a joint director in the CBI, with claims of document forgery related to a specific case.
The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed appeals against a 2006 ruling that mandated an FIR against Kumar and then-CBI officer Vinod Kumar Pandey.
The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, stated,
“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 order, the Supreme Court directed that the Delhi Police Special Cell conduct the investigation, led by an officer of at least the Assistant Commissioner of Police rank.
The bench remarked that the alleged offense occurred in 2000 and had not been investigated until now, emphasizing that it would be a “dichotomy of justice” to leave such an offense unresolved, especially with the involvement of officers on CBI deputation.
Highlighting the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, the court noted that two individuals, Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, had filed separate complaints with the police in 2001 and 2004, respectively, but no action was taken.
Saini accused Kumar and Pandey of document fabrication, while Aggarwal claimed he was criminally intimidated by Pandey at Kumar’s instruction during a CBI investigation into a disproportionate assets case involving his brother, Ashok Aggarwal, a controversial former ED official.
The Supreme Court observed that when the police were hesitant to investigate CBI officers based on the complaints, the complainants turned to the high court for relief. The apex court determined that registering an FIR against the two officers would not prejudice them, as they would have the opportunity to participate in the investigation to demonstrate their innocence.
The court indicated that the investigating officer could submit a closure report or file a chargesheet based on the gathered evidence. If a closure report is accepted by the magistrate, the appellants would have no grounds for complaint.
Conversely, if a chargesheet is filed, they would have the chance to contest it before the appropriate forum.
The Supreme Court deemed it unwise to prevent the FIR or investigation when the high court had identified a prima facie, cognizable offense against the officers.
It stressed that the investigating officer should conduct the inquiry in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any findings or observations from the high court, and to conclude it as swiftly as possible, ideally within three months, given the lengthy duration of the case.
The appellants were instructed to engage with the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer, appearing as required. Should they comply with the investigation process, no coercive measures, including arrest, would be taken unless the investigating officer deemed custodial interrogation necessary at any point.