The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Delhi High Court order directing the registration of an FIR against the former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar and another officer on allegations of intimidation including use of vulgar language to coerce a man to withdraw a complaint against him.
"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. It is cardinal in law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," said a two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal and including Prasanna B Varale.
The case relates to an incident in 2001 when Kumar was posted as a joint director in the CBI.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court's two-judge bench had in 2019 rejected the appeals against a 2006 order of its single-judge bench directing an FIR against Kumar and then CBI officer Vinod Kumar Pandey.
The HC had noted that both the officers acted in connivance and whether Pandey had acted at the behest of Kumar was a matter to be investigated.
Following this, Kumar and Pandey had moved the apex court challenging the HC's order dismissing their pleas.
The top court added that the appellants (Kumar, Pandey) are directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer (IO) by appearing before him, as and when called upon. "In the event they join the investigation and appear before the I.O. regularly, no coercive steps shall be taken against them, including that of arrest, until and unless the I.O. records satisfaction that custodial interrogation at any stage is necessary," said the top court in its verdict.
In its 20-page judgement, a copy of which was accessed by TNIE, the apex court said that the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated. "It is the duty of the police to register an FIR (First Information Report) if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, and the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information, the court found no good reason to interfere with a discretion exercised by the High Court in ordering investigation into the matter," said the apex court in its judgement on September 10.
The top court also clarified that 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.
"Thereupon, the IO, on consideration of the material collected during the 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 apex court.
The SC added that it would, however, 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 the CBI.
The top court also noted that it would be a 'dichotomy of justice' if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of officers on deputation to the CBI.
The apex court said the complainants Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal approached the police authorities but no action was taken on their complaints as the police expressed reluctance on the ground that it would not be proper on their part to investigate against CBI officers, forcing the complainants to approach the HC.
In its order, the HC held that the allegations of abuse, intimidation and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Kumar Aggarwal to ensure withdrawal of his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s complaint against Kumar, were serious and not unfounded. "Such conduct was grave in nature and prima facie disclosed the commission of cognisable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)," the HC had said.