Case Note

Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Sheesh Ram Saini & Ors.
2025 INSC 1095 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 10 September 2025)

Facts

The case arose from two writ petitions filed in 2001 by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal before the Delhi High Court. The petitions alleged abuse of authority and misconduct by two CBI officers — Vinod Kumar Pandey (Inspector) and Neeraj Kumar (Joint Director) — during investigations. The allegations included:

• Illegal seizure of documents without contemporaneous seizure memo;

• Summoning individuals despite subsisting bail orders; and

• Intimidation, vulgar abuse, and coercion to withdraw complaints.

The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by orders dated 26 June 2006, directed Delhi Police to register FIRs, finding that prima facie cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss. 166, 218, 463, 465, 469, and 120-B) were disclosed.

The officers’ Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed on maintainability grounds in 2019. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the complaints disclosed cognizable offences warranting registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC.

2. Whether the High Court was correct in directing registration of FIR despite a preliminary enquiry by CBI concluding otherwise.

3. Whether the acts complained of were protected under Section 197 CrPC (sanction for prosecution of public servants) or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

4. What safeguards, if any, should be afforded to the officers during investigation.

Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directions to register FIRs, with modifications regarding the investigating agency.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Mandatory FIR Registration — Once information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC. Credibility or genuineness of the information is not a condition precedent. The Court reaffirmed Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1.

2. Public Servants’ Liability — Officers cannot claim immunity under Section 197 CrPC or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act if they abuse authority or knowingly falsify records. Such conduct falls outside the scope of bona fide official duty.

3. Preliminary Enquiry Not Conclusive — The CBI’s internal enquiry report (2005) was held to be non-conclusive. Courts may independently determine whether allegations disclose cognizable offences.

4. Scope of Judicial Discretion — The High Court’s opinion that cognizable offences were prima facie made out was not binding on the Investigating Officer (IO), who retains discretion to file a closure report or chargesheet.

5. Investigation by Delhi Police — Modifying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed investigation by Delhi Police (not Special Cell), by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.

6. Safeguards Against Arrest — The appellants were directed to cooperate with investigation. No coercive action, including arrest, should be taken unless custodial interrogation is deemed necessary.

Observations

The Court delivered a strong message on accountability of investigative agencies:

“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 Court also stressed that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, particularly where allegations involve high-ranking investigative officers.

Significance

• Strengthens jurisprudence on mandatory FIR registration under Lalita Kumari.

• Clarifies limits of official immunity under Section 197 CrPC.

• Demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to scrutinize and hold accountable investigative officers, thereby reinforcing public confidence in the rule of law.

• Balances accountability with fairness by protecting officers from arbitrary arrest during investigation.

Endnotes

1. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1.

2. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat (2025) 4 SCC 818.

3. Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409.

4. Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677.

5. Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2025 INSC 895.

Download PDF of Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Sheesh Ram Saini Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Sheesh Ram Saini (Supreme Court)