The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of complaint proceedings against six CBI officers after finding a reasonable foundation for allegations that a statement made before the court regarding correspondence with the administrative Ministry was prima facie false.
Justice Madhu Jain allowed a criminal appeal filed by former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and set aside the Special Judge’s order refusing to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Court directed the Special Judge to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad concerning alleged offences under Sections 191 read with 193 and Section 209 of the IPC.
Background
Aggarwal, an Indian Revenue Service officer, had been prosecuted by the CBI in a disproportionate-assets case. His prosecution was based on a sanction order which the Delhi High Court later found invalid, resulting in his discharge by the Special Judge in March 2016.
The CBI subsequently considered challenging that judgment before the Supreme Court. However, the Ministry of Law and Justice gave an opinion in June 2016 that there appeared to be no reasonable ground to pursue the matter before a higher forum. The opinion was communicated to the CBI through the Department of Personnel and Training on July 1, 2016.
When Aggarwal sought the return of documents seized during the investigation, the CBI filed a reply on August 2, 2016, stating that correspondence with the administrative Ministry regarding further legal action was “under way”.
The High Court closely examined the successive drafts of the CBI's reply. It found that an earlier draft specifically recorded that the DoPT had turned down the CBI's proposal to file a Special Leave Petition. That statement was later deleted and replaced by a handwritten assertion that correspondence with the Ministry was underway.
The Court noted that the material showed different levels of involvement of the six officers in preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the final reply.
The Court rejected the argument that an internal proposal being considered within the CBI could be described as correspondence already underway with the Ministry.
“A proposal to send a request to DoPT that is merely under active consideration cannot be equated with correspondence actually being under way.”
The Court also considered the CBI's subsequent reply dated August 9, 2016, and the fact that the earlier application for release of documents had initially been allowed. However, it held that these circumstances did not remove the inconsistency in the August 2 reply.
The High Court observed that the truth of the statement had to be examined according to the position existing on August 2, 2016, rather than subsequent developments.
It further held that the documentary record provided a reasonable foundation for the allegations under Sections 191 read with 193 IPC and Section 209 IPC. The Court clarified that its finding was only at the stage of directing a complaint and that the concerned officers' precise knowledge, intention and participation would be determined by the competent court.
The Delhi High Court set aside the Special Judge's order dated October 25, 2025, and allowed Aggarwal's application under Section 340 CrPC.
The Special Judge was directed to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad and transmit it to the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks.
The Court further directed that the competent court proceed independently and in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.A. 289/2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: October 6, 2026
