SC Orders FIR Against Ex-Delhi Police Chief in 20-Year-Old Case Of Document Fabrication

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would be dichotomy of justice if an offence is allowed to go without investigation particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI, as it ordered an FIR against former Delhi Police commissioner Neeraj Kumar in a two-decade old case, involving allegations of fabrication of documents and criminal intimidation.

The matter is regarding an incident in 2001 when Kumar was posted as a joint director in the CBI and there is an allegation of fabrication of documents in a case.

A bench comprising justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said: “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. 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”.

The bench said it is trite to point out that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated.

The bench declined to interfere with the judgment and order(s) of the Delhi High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The apex court upheld the order of the Delhi High Court, and directed the matter to be investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell and by an officer not below the ACP rank.

“However, we make it clear that since the Special Cell of the Delhi Police is supposed to investigate the matters concerning terrorism, upon registration of the FIR in the case at hand, the investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police itself but by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police”, said the apex court.

The Delhi High Court on March 13, 2019 dismissed the appeals against a 2006 order of its single-judge bench directing FIR against Kumar and then CBI officer Vinod Kumar Pandey. Pandey and Kumar moved the apex court against the high court orders.

The bench said it would 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 registration of the FIR against the two officers is not likely to cause any prejudice to them, and they will have the right to participate in the investigation to establish that they have not committed any offence, as alleged.

“Thereupon, the I.O. (investigating officer) on consideration of the material collected during investigation, may submit a closure report or file the chargesheet. In the event, a closure report is filed and accepted by the magistrate, the appellants will have no grievance. On the other hand, in the event, a charge sheet is submitted, the appellants will have an opportunity to assail the same before the appropriate forum”, said the bench.

The apex court noted that the complainants Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal have approached the police authorities by means of complaints dated July 5, 2001, and February 23, 2004, to get the matter investigated, but as no action was purportedly taken. While Saini alleged fabrication of documents by Kumar and Pandey, Aggarwal alleged being criminally intimidated by Pandey at Kumar's instance.

The bench noted that rather it is alleged that the police authorities expressed reluctance to entertain the complaints as it would not be proper on part of the police to investigate against the officers of the CBI, the complainants approached the constitutional court for necessary action. “Since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information”, said the apex court.

Aggarwal at the time was being investigated by the CBI in a disproportionate assets case along with his brother. The apex court stressed that the investigating officer would conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any finding or observation made by the high court and should conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months given the case was pending for long.

"The appellants are directed to join the investigation and to cooperate with the IO by appearing before him, as and when called upon. In the event they join the investigation and appear before the IO regularly, no coercive steps shall be taken against them, including that of arrest, until and unless the IO records satisfaction that custodial interrogation at any stage is necessary," said the bench.