SC upholds Delhi HC order to file criminal cases against former top cop

The allegations pertain to the period during which Kumar was deputed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as its joint director

New Delhi

The top court dismissed the appeals filed by Kumar and Pandey, challenging separate orders of the Delhi High Court passed by a single judge in June 2006, and upheld by a division bench in March 2019, ordering an officer of ACP rank to probe the matter within three months. (HT Archive)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Delhi High Court order directing registration of criminal cases against former Delhi Police commissioner Neeraj Kumar and another officer, Vinay Kumar Pandey observing that “those who investigate should also be investigated to ensure common man’s faith” in the system is kept alive.

The two complainants in the case are Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Agarwal. The two of them were accused of fabricating documents, in cases filed in 2001 and 2004, in a case involving a former Enforcement Directorate (ED) official and detaining a person granted bail.

The top court bench of justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale 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. It would be a dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI.”

The allegations pertain to the period during which Kumar was deputed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as its joint director. The other officer, Vinod Kumar Pandey, who later became an assistant commissioner of police, served as an inspector with the CBI. Kumar served as Delhi Police commissioner from June 2012 to July 2013.

The court dismissed the appeals filed by Kumar and Pandey, challenging separate orders of the Delhi High Court passed by a single judge in June 2006, and upheld by a division bench in March 2019, ordering an officer of ACP rank to probe the matter within three months.

Dismissing the defendants’ contentions that such an order demoralises police officers involved in the investigation of offences, the bench said, “ 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.”

In the judgment, justice Mithal said, “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, as alleged.”

The bench noted that if, upon investigation, the investigating officer files a closure report, it would vindicate the stand of the officers; if it results in filing of a charge sheet, they will have the opportunity to assail it before the appropriate forum.

Saini alleged he was forced to sign documents in a case of corruption and amassing disproportionate assets involving former deputy ED director Ashok Agarwal. The case was being probed by the two officers in the late 1990s.

The second complainant, Agarwal, the younger brother of the ED officer facing probe, claimed to have been detained at the CBI office in violation of a court order granting him anticipatory bail. He alleged he was coerced into convincing his brother to withdraw a complaint lodged against Kumar.

The high court held that the former CBI officers committed irregularities and were prima facie guilty of the commission of the offences, as alleged. While it was alleged that Pandey acted at the behest of Kumar, the top court remarked, “The question whether Vinod Kumar Pandey acted on the advice or behest of Neeraj Kumar or whether they were in connivance, is a matter of fact which has to be investigated.”

The two officers were represented in the Supreme Court by senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Dhruv Mehta. They argued that by the HC order, there was no discretion with the police to probe whether or not a cognizable offence was made out for registration of a first information report (FIR). They even questioned the high court order for directing the Special Cell of the Delhi Police to conduct the investigation, whereas the Special Cell is tasked with probing terrorist cases.

Dismissing the allegations, the top court said, “If the Constitutional court has exercised its discretion in entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them, we see no good reason to interfere with such discretion.”

The high court had called for a report from a joint director of the CBI before passing its order, which was reiterated by the top court. It further clarified that instead of the Special Cell, the investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police. Considering the long pendency of nearly 25 years, the court directed the investigating officer to expedite the probe, preferably closing it within three months.

The high court had held that the action of the two officers attracted penal provisions under sections 218 and 166 (action of public servant acting contrary to law), 463 and 465 (forgery), 469 (forgery with intent to harm reputation), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The top court further directed that in the event the two officers join the investigation and appear before the investigation officer regularly, “no coercive steps shall be taken against them, including that of arrest,” while leaving it open for the investigating officer to seek custodial interrogation, if necessary.