In Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors. (2025 INSC 1095), the Supreme Court of India has upheld the Delhi High Court’s directions for registration of a First Information Report (“FIR”) against two senior officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thereby reiterating that investigative officers are not immune from scrutiny when allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The decision underscores the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), and clarifies the scope of judicial intervention where allegations involve abuse of official position by public servants.
Factual Matrix
The controversy originated from complaints filed by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal in 2001 and 2004 respectively. The allegations pertained to abuse of authority, coercion, and fabrication of records by two CBI officers, namely Vinod Kumar Pandey (Inspector) and Neeraj Kumar (Joint Director). It was alleged that the officers:
- Seized documents without preparing a seizure memo on the date of seizure;
- Summoned and intimidated individuals in contravention of bail orders; and
- Employed threats and coercion, including vulgar abuse, to compel withdrawal of complaints.
Two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC were filed before the Delhi High Court seeking registration of FIRs. By orders dated 26.06.2006, the Single Judge partly allowed the petitions and directed the Delhi Police to register cases against the officers. The High Court found that prima facie cognizable offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)—including Sections 166, 218, 463, 465, 469 and 120-B—were disclosed.
The officers’ Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench in 2019 on the ground of maintainability. The matter then reached the Supreme Court after a prolonged delay, which was condoned on the ground that the appellants were bona fide pursuing remedies before the High Court.
Contentions
For the Appellants:
- The complaints did not disclose cognizable offences, and hence the High Court could not have directed FIR registration.
- The High Court erred in recording a finding of commission of cognizable offences, thereby prejudicing the investigation.
- The preliminary enquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI, had concluded that no offence was made out, and this finding could not be brushed aside.
- No material existed to implicate Neeraj Kumar.
- The investigation should not have been entrusted to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, which is ordinarily tasked with counter-terrorism matters.
For the Respondents:
- The allegations were grave, involving falsification of records and abuse of authority.
- The officers could not claim protection under Section 197 CrPC or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, as the acts alleged were not bona fide discharge of official duties.
- The CBI, being an institution, was not the aggrieved party; rather, the officers themselves were liable to defend the allegations in their personal capacity.
Findings of the Supreme Court
The Court, speaking through Justice Pankaj Mithal, upheld the directions for registration of FIRs with the following significant observations:
- Mandatory Registration of FIR: Reiterating Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Court held that registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. Preliminary enquiries cannot oust this statutory duty.
- Public Servants Not Immune: The Court emphasized that public servants cannot seek immunity when they knowingly falsify records or abuse authority. The acts alleged could not be treated as mere procedural irregularities.
- Preliminary Enquiry Non-Conclusive: The CBI’s enquiry report was held to be at best a preliminary exercise and not conclusive. The High Court was competent to independently assess whether cognizable offences were prima facie disclosed.
- Discretion of Investigating Officer Preserved: The Court clarified that the High Court’s opinion was only prima facie and would not bind the Investigating Officer (IO). The IO retains discretion to file a closure report or chargesheet based on the evidence collected.
- Investigation by Delhi Police: Modifying the High Court’s direction, the Court held that investigation shall be conducted by an officer of the Delhi Police not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, rather than the Special Cell.
- Safeguards for the Appellants: The Court directed that no coercive action, including arrest, be taken if the appellants cooperate with the investigation, unless custodial interrogation becomes necessary.
In a significant remark, the Court observed:
“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.”
Doctrinal Significance
This judgment carries considerable precedential value on three counts:
- Reaffirmation of Lalita Kumari: The decision strengthens the jurisprudence that genuineness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for FIR registration.
- Limits of Official Immunity: The ruling narrows the protective ambit of Section 197 CrPC by distinguishing between bona fide discharge of duty and acts of mala fide abuse of authority.
- Judicial Oversight over Investigative Agencies: The case demonstrates the Court’s willingness to hold investigative officers personally accountable, thereby reinforcing the principle that the rule of law applies uniformly, even to those tasked with its enforcement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Kumar Pandey is a robust reaffirmation of accountability in India’s investigative framework. By directing investigation against senior CBI officers despite the lapse of time, the Court has underscored that allegations of abuse of power by law enforcement cannot be left unexamined. Importantly, the judgment balances this with safeguards to protect the rights of the accused officers, thereby preserving both the integrity of investigation and the fairness of process.