SC Upholds Delhi HC Order to File Criminal Cases Against Former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar

Supreme Court’s Landmark Observation

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing the registration of criminal cases against former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar and officer Vinay Kumar Pandey. The apex court emphasized that “those who investigate should also be investigated to ensure the common man’s faith in the system is kept alive.”

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale dismissed the appeals filed by both officers, confirming the Delhi HC’s earlier decisions of 2006 and 2019.

---

Allegations Against the Officers

The case dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s when Neeraj Kumar was deputed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as its joint director. Pandey, later an Assistant Commissioner of Police, was serving as a CBI inspector at the time.

• Complainant Sheesh Ram Saini alleged he was coerced into signing documents in a corruption case involving former ED deputy director Ashok Agarwal.

• Complainant Vijay Agarwal, brother of Ashok Agarwal, claimed he was illegally detained at the CBI office despite anticipatory bail. He alleged he was forced to convince his brother to withdraw a complaint lodged against Kumar.

These incidents raised allegations of fabrication of documents, abuse of authority, and illegal detention.

---

Trial Court and HC Findings

The Delhi High Court found that both officers had committed procedural irregularities and were prima facie guilty of offences under IPC Sections 469 (forgery to harm reputation) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

While Pandey allegedly acted under Kumar’s directions, the Supreme Court clarified that this remains a factual issue that requires investigation.

---

SC’s Key Directives

The apex court made the following important observations and directions:

1. FIR Registration: Ordered registration of FIRs against both officers within three months.

2. No Prejudice to Officers: Stated that FIR registration alone does not prejudice the accused; they retain rights during investigation.

3. Protection from Arrest: Directed that if the officers cooperate with the investigation, no coercive steps including arrest shall be taken unless custodial interrogation is deemed necessary.

4. Expedited Investigation: Considering the pendency of nearly 25 years, the probe must be expedited and preferably completed within three months.

---

Court’s Reasoning

Rejecting the officers’ contention that such action would demoralize investigators, the bench stated:

• “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

• Officers entrusted with upholding the law cannot remain above scrutiny when allegations of wrongdoing arise.

• The NHAI Act precedent and principles of natural justice support the need for judicially monitored accountability.

---

Wider Implications

The ruling underscores that law enforcement officers are not immune from accountability. At a time when public trust in investigative agencies is often questioned, the Supreme Court’s message is clear: transparency and accountability must apply even to those tasked with enforcing the law.

---

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Delhi HC’s order ensures that allegations of misconduct against senior law enforcement officials are not brushed aside. By directing prompt investigation, the court reinforced the principle that no one is above the law — a vital step for safeguarding public confidence in the justice system.

---