Summary and Analysis of Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr vs Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors 2025 INSC 1095

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors. along with connected matters
Citation: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors., 2025 INSC 1095 (Supreme Court of India, 2025).
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment discusses and interprets the following key legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 166 (Public servant disobeying law), 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 342 (Wrongful confinement), 463 (Forgery), 465 (Punishment for forgery), 469 (Forgery for purpose of harming reputation), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
  Section 154: Mandatory registration of a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.
  Section 197: Requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant for acts done in official duty.
  Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice.

• Constitution of India:
  Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
  Article 136: Special leave jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to appeal against any judgment.

• Delhi Police Act, 1978: Section 140.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Vinod Kumar Pandey (then Inspector, CBI) and Neeraj Kumar (then Joint Director, CBI).
  Respondents: Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal (complainants).

• Background: Two complainants (Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal) filed separate writ petitions before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. They alleged that the CBI officers had committed serious offences like intimidation, illegal confinement, and fabricating records while investigating a case. They sought a direction to the police to register an FIR against the officers.

• High Court Order (2006): A Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the petitions. The court held that prima facie cognizable offences were made out and directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR and investigate the matter through its Special Cell.

• Appeal to Division Bench: The CBI officers filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) before a Division Bench of the High Court, which were dismissed in 2019 on the ground of maintainability.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: The officers then appealed to the Supreme Court against both the Single Judge's order (2006) and the Division Bench's order (2019) dismissing their LPAs.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI officers and upheld the High Court's direction to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. However, it modified certain procedural aspects of the High Court's order.

Core Issues and the Supreme Court's Analysis:

A. Challenge to the High Court's Direction for FIR Registration:
The appellants argued that the complaints did not disclose cognizable offences and that the High Court should not have substituted its own finding over the CBI's preliminary inquiry report, which had found no offence.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. It carefully examined the High Court's reasoning and the allegations, which included:

• Seizure of documents without preparing a memo on the same day, in violation of the CBI Crime Manual.

• Summoning a complainant in derogation of a bail order, indicating a mala fide intent.

• Using abusive language, intimidation, and threats to coerce a complainant.

The Court held that these allegations, if true, prima facie disclosed serious cognizable offences like forgery, framing incorrect records, criminal intimidation, and abuse of official position. The Court cited its landmark decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) to reiterate that if information discloses a cognizable offence, the police are duty-bound under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR immediately. A preliminary inquiry is not a prerequisite in such cases.

The CBI's internal inquiry report was considered merely a "preliminary enquiry," which is not conclusive and cannot oust the power of a constitutional court to form its own opinion on whether a cognizable offence is made out based on the complaint.

B. Allegation of Bias and Connivance against Both Officers:
The appellants argued that even if allegations existed against Vinod Kumar Pandey, there was no material against Neeraj Kumar. The Supreme Court found that the complaints alleged connivance and that Vinod Kumar Pandey had acted at the behest of his senior officer, Neeraj Kumar. The Court stated that determining the extent of each officer's involvement is a question of fact that must be investigated.

C. Investigation by the Special Cell:
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in directing the Special Cell of the Delhi Police (which handles terrorism cases) to investigate. The Supreme Court agreed with this modification. It directed that while the investigation will still be conducted by the Delhi Police, it should be done by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, but not necessarily from the Special Cell.

D. Use of the CBI's Preliminary Inquiry Report:
The High Court had directed the investigating officer to completely ignore the CBI's preliminary inquiry report. The Supreme Court modified this direction. It held that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) can look at the preliminary inquiry report during the investigation if necessary, but must not treat it as conclusive. The I.O. must conduct an independent and unbiased investigation.

E. Protection for the Appellants during Investigation:
Understanding the gravity for the officers, the Supreme Court built in safeguards:

• The appellants are directed to join and cooperate with the investigation.

• No coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against them as long as they cooperate, unless the I.O. specifically records that custodial interrogation is necessary.

F. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellants challenged the 2006 High Court order only in 2019 after their LPAs were dismissed. The Supreme Court condoned this significant delay because the appellants were bona fide pursuing their remedies before the High Court and were not willfully negligent.

Supreme Court's Final Directions and Conclusion

1. FIR Registration Upheld: The direction to register an FIR based on the complaints is upheld.

2. Investigation Agency Modified: The investigation will be conducted by the Delhi Police by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (not necessarily the Special Cell).

3. Preliminary Report: The I.O. may consider the CBI's preliminary inquiry report but is not bound by it.

4. Independent Investigation: The I.O. must investigate without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

5. Timeline: The investigation must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

6. Protection for Appellants: The appellants must cooperate, and no coercive steps will be taken against them unless custodial interrogation becomes necessary.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that when serious allegations of abuse of power by investigating agencies are made, "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done." It emphatically stated that "sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated" to maintain public faith in the justice system. Therefore, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to allow an investigation to proceed.