Facts
Vinod Kumar Pandey, Inspector, C.B.I., and Neeraj Kumar, Joint Director, appealed to this Court. The complaints were filed by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal and they alleged them of committing various offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) including under sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 166 (public servant disobeying law), 218 (preparing incorrect record), 463, 465 and 469 (forgery) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). The complaints mentioned abuse of authority and irregular conduct on the part of the officers, who were reportedly acting beyond their line of duty.
Writ petitions were then instituted invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482, CrPC, in order to direct registration of FIRs. The Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed these petitions and after holding that the prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed, directed investigation through the Delhi Police Special Cell by an officer not below the rank of ACP. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench as not maintainable and therefore, the said orders passed in the LPA applications were also assailed on the above ground.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing registration of FIR though the CBI inquiry revealed that there was no cognisable offence.
- Whether the policemen were protected under Section 197 CrPC for acts done in official capacity.
- Whether the Delhi Police Special Cell was justified in conducting the investigation.
- Whether a 12-year delay in challenging the High Court’s order should be condoned.
Legal Provisions Involved
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 506: Punishes criminal intimidation.
- Section 341: Penalizes wrongful restraint.
- Section 342: Punishes wrongful confinement.
- Section 166: Liability of a public servant disobeying law to cause injury.
- Section 218: Public servant framing incorrect records to save or harm.
- Sections 463, 465, 469: Deal with forgery and use of forged documents, including intent to harm reputation.
- Section 120-B: Punishes criminal conspiracy.
Constitution of India:
- Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of rights and justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- Section 482: Inherent powers of High Courts to prevent abuse of process.
- Section 197: Protection to public servants from prosecution for official acts without sanction.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The complaints did not so disclose any cognisable offences for registration of FIR.
- Incorrect consideration by the High Court of the CBI Joint Director’s inquiry report which did not disclose any case for investigation.
- The court’s direction was untenable as the procedure to follow, as laid down by the Supreme Court on FIR registration, was not followed.
- Police officials were covered under Section 197 CrPC as the acts complained of related to official duties.
- Assigning the case to the Delhi Police Special Cell, which ordinarily investigates cases of terrorism, was the wrong choice.
- The appeal was time barred by over 12 years of unexplained delay in challenging the order of the high court.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The charges are grave and could not be quashed at a preliminary stage based on a complaint.
- The High Court has rightly exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 482 CrPC to order FIR registration.
- Section 197 CrPC does not apply to mala fide or corrupt acts.
- Excuse for delay in filing second appeal as appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal.
- The CBI was not the necessary party as the allegations were personal.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court perused the record and the ratio on FIR registration. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of the Uttar Pradesh and the impression in other cases, where the information or material having been given and it prima facie discloses, commission of a cognizable offence under the Code a bare reading of it does not otherwise disclose even at this stage of credibility of the informant but lodging of the FIR.
The Court held that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Joint Director CBI was at best an initial step, which could not prevent the Court or the Investigating Officer from taking action at a stage when allegations of cognizable offenses were visible. It dismissed the contention that the Hon’ble High Court had committed error in recording facts at the stage of FIR.
On Section 197 Cr. P.C., the Court explained that the immunity-protection became applicable exclusively to genuine official acts. Abuses of authority, threats and procedural violations were not considered to be protected since mala fide or criminal actions cannot be shielded by official duty.
Dealing with the inordinate delay of more than twelve years, the Court accepted the reasons furnished by the appellants that they were bona fide pursuing the remedies in the High Court and condoned the delay, finding it neither deliberate nor wilful.
On the aspect of investigation, the Court altered the order of the High Court. They then passed the order to Delhi Police on the grounds that the Special Cell investigates terrorism cases, and asked it to assign the matter to any ACP, so that there is no bias.
The Court also stressed that justice must be seen to be done particularly when the very officers investigating are themselves accused. It ordered speedy probe to keep up public confidence
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the High Court’s order of FIR registration. It altered the order, saying the Delhi Police, and not the Special Cell, will investigate through an officer of appropriate rank. The appellants were directed to cooperate, and were assured that no coercive action including arrest would be taken, unless inevitable. The appellants were informed that they could seek remedies, post investigation, including challenging a closure report or a charge sheet.
Conclusion
The judgment further reaffirms the direction to file FIRs in case it prima facie Alpha,119 charges, if necessary, against the investigating officer. Open protection in Section 197 CrPC and clarifies that a preliminary inquiry doesn’t bar an FIR. Focusing on transparency, the Court upheld the principles of fair trial by entrusting the Delhi Police to probe, allaying perception of justice.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Stuti Vineet
For reading more click here: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.
