LexVINOD KUMAR PANDEY & ANR. versus SEESH RAM SAINI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 66 : 2025 INSC 1095 Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11740 of 2025) 10 September 2025 [Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding that prima facie cognizable offences are made out for investigation against the appellant-officers of the CBI, and directing the Delhi Police to register a case. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.154 – Registration of FIR upon receiving information about cognizable offence – Writ petitions seeking directions for registration of FIR against appellants- officers on deputation to CBI alleging commission of offences u/ss.506, 341, 342, 166, and ss.218, 463, 465, 469, 166 and 120-B IPC – Single Judge of the High Court rejecting the conclusion reached by the CBI’s enquiry officer that no offence was made out and that the allegations of abuse and coercion were unsubstantiated, held that prima facie cognizable offences made out for investigation against the officers, directed the Delhi Police to register a case, and to get the matter investigated by the Special Cell – Appeals thereagainst, dismissed by the Division Bench – Interference: Held: Not appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction u/Art.136 – Report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR – However, such an enquiry is not ordinarily contemplated in law before registration of FIR, and hence is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, on the material or the allegations in the complaints – Genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of an FIR – If the Constitutional Court has exercised its discretion in * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 67 Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them, no good reason to interfere with such discretion – Opinion expressed by the High Court in regard to commission of the cognizable offences is only a prima facie opinion and has to be treated as such, so as not to affect the discretion of the I.O., subsequent to the investigation – Registration of the FIR against the two officers 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 – 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 officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of CBI – It would be dichotomy of justice if such offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI – 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 – Investigation would be conducted by the Delhi Police itself but by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police – I.O. may consider inquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI during the investigation by him, but not to treat it as conclusive – I.O. would conduct the investigation without being influenced by any finding or observation made by the High Court or this Court and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. [Paras 28, 32-41] Case Law Cited Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat [2025] 4 SCR 32 : (2025) 4 SCC 818; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2007] 12 SCR 1100 : (2008) 2 SCC 409; Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2006] 2 SCR 403 : (2006) 2 SCC 677; Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025 INSC 895; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.