Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by two CBI officers challenging a Delhi High Court order of 26.06.2006 that had directed registration of FIRs against them for alleged abuse of power, wrongful detention, coercion, and fabrication of records. The Court held that prima facie cognizable offences were made out, and that the officers were not entitled to immunity merely because the acts were done in their official capacity. It emphasized that “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, however, modified the High Court’s directions slightly. It directed that the FIR would be investigated by the Delhi Police, not the Special Cell meant for terrorism cases, and clarified that the CBI’s preliminary inquiry report could be looked into but would not be conclusive. Investigation must be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, and no coercive steps such as arrest would be taken if the officers cooperated unless custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.
Facts
The controversy arose out of two writ petitions filed in 2001 by private individuals alleging misconduct by two senior CBI officers during investigations. One complaint alleged that documents were seized without preparation of a proper seizure memo, and another alleged intimidation, threats, and coercion to withdraw complaints against one officer.
On 26.06.2006, the Delhi High Court partly allowed both petitions, directing Delhi Police to register FIRs and investigate the allegations. The High Court found that prima facie offences under Sections 218, 463, 465, 469, 166, 120-B IPC (fabrication of records, wrongful confinement, criminal conspiracy, etc.) were made out.
The CBI’s internal inquiry had concluded that no offence was made out. However, the High Court rejected this finding, holding that the report could not override clear allegations of cognizable offences.
The officers appealed through Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), which were dismissed on maintainability in 2019. They then approached the Supreme Court in 2019 by way of Special Leave Petitions. The Court condoned the delay, noting that the officers had been bona fide pursuing remedies before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Delhi High Court erred in directing registration of FIRs against CBI officers on the basis of complaints.
- Whether preliminary inquiry findings of “no offence” by the CBI barred registration of FIR.
- Whether actions of CBI officers could be shielded by immunity under Section 197 CrPC or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
- Whether courts can direct FIR registration despite availability of alternative remedies.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the complaints did not disclose cognizable offences and that the High Court could not have substituted its view over the CBI’s inquiry report which found no offence. They contended that even if allegations against one officer could be considered, there was no material implicating the other.
They further submitted that directing investigation by the Special Cell of Delhi Police was erroneous, as the Special Cell typically handles terrorism-related cases. They relied on Section 197 CrPC and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act to argue that their actions, done in discharge of official duties, were immune from prosecution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainants and the State argued that the officers abused their official authority for mala fide purposes, which cannot be protected as official duty. They contended that CBI’s preliminary inquiry was not binding, especially since it acknowledged procedural lapses such as seizure without proper memo.
It was further argued that public servants are not entitled to immunity where allegations involve misuse of authority, fabrication of documents, or intimidation. They relied on the principle that citizens have a right to FIR registration when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized that under Section 154 CrPC, registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses a cognizable offence. Preliminary inquiry may be conducted only when allegations are unclear, but it cannot be used to override clear complaints.
The Court rejected the immunity argument, holding that protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with discharge of duty. Abuse of authority, intimidation, or fabrication of records cannot be considered part of official duty.
On the role of High Courts, the Court reiterated that although writ petitions under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly entertained when alternative remedies exist, they are not barred when complaints disclose serious cognizable offences and police show reluctance to act.
Precedent Analysis
- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat (2025) 4 SCC 818 – Held that abuse of official position and corrupt practices by public servants are cognizable offences; FIR must be registered without preliminary inquiry.
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 – Clarified that alternative remedies do not bar High Court’s jurisdiction if FIR registration is refused.
- Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 – Registration of FIR mandatory when cognizable offence disclosed; genuineness of complaint is not a precondition.
- Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 895) – Held that approaching courts directly without exhausting remedies is a procedural irregularity, not illegality; FIR must still be registered if cognizable offence disclosed.
- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Landmark ruling that FIR registration is mandatory when cognizable offence disclosed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court upheld the High Court’s order on merits. It observed that allegations of illegal seizure, wrongful summoning despite bail, and coercion to withdraw complaints disclosed cognizable offences. The CBI’s own inquiry admitted procedural irregularities.
The Court stressed that the principle of “justice must be seen to be done” required allowing investigation even against officers of premier agencies like CBI. It rejected arguments that registration of FIR would prejudice the officers, noting that investigation may result in closure if no offence is found.
The Court slightly modified the High Court’s order by transferring investigation from the Special Cell to Delhi Police officers not below the rank of ACP. It directed the investigation to conclude within three months and protected the appellants from arrest if they cooperated, unless custodial interrogation became necessary.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding FIR registration against the two CBI officers. It reaffirmed that allegations of abuse of power by investigating officers must be investigated like any other cognizable offence. The ruling underscores that public servants are not immune when they act beyond the scope of duty, and citizens’ complaints must be treated with seriousness.
Implications
This judgment has wide implications for accountability of investigative agencies. It sends a strong message that even premier officers like those in CBI are subject to the same criminal law as ordinary citizens when accused of abuse of power. It also reiterates the mandatory nature of FIR registration and limits the scope of immunity for public servants. The ruling strengthens public trust by affirming that “those who investigate must also be investigated” when allegations of misconduct arise.
FAQs
Q1. Can CBI officers claim immunity for acts done during investigations?
No. Immunity under Section 197 CrPC applies only when acts are reasonably connected with official duty. Abuse of power or fabrication of records is not protected.
Q2. Why did the Court uphold FIR registration despite CBI’s inquiry finding no offence?
Because the inquiry was only preliminary and could not override serious allegations of cognizable offences disclosed in the complaints.
Q3. What protection did the Supreme Court grant the officers?
They will not face coercive steps, including arrest, if they cooperate with investigation, unless custodial interrogation is deemed necessary.