NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an order for lodging of an FIR against then Joint Director, CBI Neeraj Kumar, who retired as Delhi Police Commissioner, and another officer in a case related to abuse of power, intimidation, and threats.
The matter related to also the use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Aggarwal, brother of an IRS officer to withdraw a complaint against the senior IPS officer in year 2000.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said that 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.
Rejecting the plea against the High Court's 2006 order, the bench said the offence was alleged to have been committed in the year 2000 and till date the matter had not been allowed to be investigated.
The court emphasised that it is the duty of the police to register an FIR 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 saw no good reason to interfere with a discretion exercised by the High Court in ordering investigation into matter on writ petitions filed by the complainant.
"At best, we can say that the opinion expressed by the High Court in regard to commission of the cognisable offences is only a prima facie opinion and has to be treated as such,'' the bench said.
The bench 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.
Kumar, the retired IPS officer and then CBI Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey challenged the validity of the HC's order.
The court, however, opined 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, the bench clarified.
"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 CBI,'' the bench said.
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 it would not be proper on their part to investigate against the officers of the CBI, forcing the complainants to approach the High Court.
The High Court had noted both the officers have acted in connivance and if Pandey had acted at the behest of Kumar was required to be investigated.
On overall consideration of the material on record including the inquiry report of April 26, 2005 of the Joint Director of CBI, the HC found that cognizable offences were prima facie made out against the officers of the CBI.
It was alleged Pandey had summoned Vijay Aggarwal on June 07, 2001 and June 11, 2001 in clear derogation of a bail order of November 27, 2000 passed by the Special Judge, which prima facie indicated a mala fide and malicious exercise of authority.
The High Court held that the allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Aggarwal to ensure withdrawal of his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s complaint against Kumar, were serious and not unfounded. It said that such conduct was grave in nature and prima facie disclosed the commission of cognisable offences under IPC.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
