The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal complaint proceedings against six Central Bureau of Investigation officers, including three Indian Police Service officers, after finding a prima facie case that a reply filed before a trial court in 2016 contained a materially false statement on the status of correspondence with the government.
Justice Madhu Jain passed the order on October 6, 2026, in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors., setting aside an October 25, 2025 order of the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, which had declined to proceed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has not held the officers guilty. It has held that the threshold for a court complaint is met, and that knowledge, intention and participation must be determined by the competent Magistrate.
What the court directed
The Special Judge, CBI-02, Rouse Avenue Courts, has been directed to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad for offences punishable under Section 191 read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 209 of the IPC, and to transmit it to the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks of receipt of the judgment.
Section 191 deals with giving false evidence. Section 193 provides the punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence. Section 209 concerns fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim in a court. The complaint is to be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, where an earlier court complaint against Sushil Dewan had been adjourned sine die. The Magistrate has been asked to revive those proceedings and ensure that parallel proceedings on the same allegations are not instituted.
Background
The dispute arises from the CBI’s prosecution of former Indian Revenue Service officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal in a disproportionate-assets case. On January 13, 2016, the Delhi High Court held the sanction for his prosecution invalid. The Special Judge discharged him on March 10, 2016.
The CBI considered challenging the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. On June 8, 2016, the Ministry of Law and Justice opined that there appeared to be no reasonable ground to agitate the matter before a higher forum. The Department of Personnel and Training communicated that opinion to the CBI on July 1, 2016.
Aggarwal thereafter sought the release of documents seized during the investigation. In a reply dated August 2, 2016, the CBI opposed the release of certain documents and stated that correspondence with the administrative Ministry on further legal action was underway, and that the documents might be required for further proceedings.
The alteration
The High Court examined successive drafts and file notings. An earlier draft expressly recorded that the DoPT had turned down the proposal to file an SLP. A recommendation dated July 19, 2016 had noted that position and suggested seeking reconsideration or a further legal opinion. That statement was later deleted and replaced by a handwritten insertion asserting that correspondence with the administrative Ministry was underway.
Justice Jain held that the record established that no such correspondence with the Ministry was underway as on August 2, 2016. What existed was an internal CBI process concerning a proposal for reconsideration or a further legal opinion. The Court observed that the agency was entitled to seek reconsideration and pursue remedies available in law, but that an internal proposal awaiting approval could not be represented as correspondence already underway with the Ministry. The alteration, the Court held, was not an imprecise choice of words. It changed the factual position placed before the trial court.
The assertion was treated as material because it was used to oppose the return of seized documents and was capable of influencing the court’s decision.
Roles examined
The Court found a reasonable basis to examine all six officers involved in preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, subject to proof of knowledge, intention and participation:
- Sushil Dewan prepared successive drafts, incorporated the handwritten alteration into a later draft, prepared the final reply and filed it under his signature.
- Vineet Vinayak was prima facie connected with the handwritten deletion of the earlier statement and the insertion that correspondence was underway, and subsequently approved the final reply.
- Prem Kumar Gautam recorded that the DoPT had turned down the SLP proposal, dealt with the drafts, obtained vetting from Md. Azad and forwarded the matter to Amit Kumar.
- Amit Kumar’s noting referred to the DoPT communication and proposed seeking reconsideration.
- Md. Azad vetted both the draft that disclosed the DoPT decision and the final reply containing the altered statement.
- Raman Tyagi dealt with the final reply, obtained its vetting and forwarded it to Amit Kumar.
The Court said the contemporaneous record disclosed different degrees of involvement.
Reasoning
Justice Jain held that the acts of preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, read with the knowledge disclosed by the preceding drafts and file notings, furnished a reasonable basis for the prima facie inference that the officers participated in advancing a claim known to be inconsistent with the existing position. These circumstances, the Court said, disclosed substantially more than the mere failure of a party to establish a contention.
The Court rejected the contentions that Aggarwal had suffered no prejudice, that the CBI had corrected the position in a reply dated August 9, 2016, and that delay barred the application. It held that the issue concerned the integrity of the judicial process, that the drafts, notings and filings remained available, and that a further preliminary inquiry was unnecessary. An inquiry, the Court said, was expedient in the interests of justice.
The complaint proceedings will now be considered by the Magistrate. A finding of guilt, if any, will depend on proof of each officer’s knowledge, intention and participation.
