Weeks after the Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order on the registration of an FIR against former CBI Joint Director Neeraj Kumar in a 2000 incident, he and former CBI inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey have been named in the FIR registered in the case, but not as accused. The section where names of the accused are usually mentioned says ‘unknown’.The FIR, which comes 25 years after allegations were made against Kumar and Pandey, invokes sections regarding criminal conspiracy, forgery, and criminal intimidation, among others. Kumar was serving as the Joint Director of CBI at the time of the incident.Kumar also served as the Delhi Police Commissioner between 2012 and 2013. He retired in 2013.In its order on September 10, the Supreme Court had said it was “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 High Court order came on petitions filed by two men — Vijay Aggarwal and Sheesh Ram Saini. While Aggarwal accused the two officers of coercing him to withdraw a complaint filed by his brother against Kumar, Saini’s plea alleged procedural irregularities, intimidation, and misuse of authority during seizures of documents by officers who were on deputation to the CBI.Two separate FIRs were registered on October 1. While one of them has been registered under sections of criminal conspiracy, public servant disobeying law, forgery, public servant framing an incorrect record, the other has been filed under sections of wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and public servant disobeying law.The Indian Express reached out to Neeraj Kumar who did not comment on the matter. Special CP Crime, Joint CP Crime and Delhi Police PRO, also did not respond to queries.Story continues below this adThe FIR filed on the complaint of Sheesh Ram Saini states that he was serving as the accountant for one of the companies of Vijay Aggarwal for ten years. It mentions that CBI had registered a case against Vijay Kumar’s brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.“Vijay Kumar Aggarwal is one of the directors of different companies and in connection with investigation of the above case, the CBI has summoned me various times in their office and on each and every occasion, I have attended their office and submitted whatever information/record/document asked for by Vinod Kumar Pandey, the Investigation Officer of the case,” the FIR stated.The FIR alleges that the CBI officers conducted a raid on April 26, 2000, at the corporate office in Naraina and in the process seized several books of accounts and two bundles of those documents without preparing any seizure memo.“VK Pandey left the premises and on my repeated requests, he refused to give me any document or any proof in regard to the seizure of books of accounts as well as two bundles of loose documents pertaining to different companies/firms of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and his family, the accounts books of which were being maintained by me,” the FIR states.Story continues below this adThe second FIR filed by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal stated that on June 11, 2001, he was summoned by Pandey for producing some information on shareholders, but on reaching his office, he was “abused, insulted and humiliated” by Vinod Pandey and “categorically told that I should force my brother to withdraw a case earlier filed u/s 340 against Neeraj Kumar for forgery of Interpol messages failing which I was threatened for my life”.Aggarwal said he even went to the Lodhi Colony police station but they refused to record his complaint.While hearing the matter last month, a bench of Supreme Court Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale in their order on September 10 said that a “plain reading of the” High Court judgment, dated June 26, 2006, “reveals that the officers of the CBI in the dock have committed irregularities, if not illegality in discharge of their official duties and are prima facie guilty of the commission of the offences as alleged”.The apex court said, “This is clearly reflected from the averments contained in the complaints and the petitions. Both the officers have acted in connivance, and it is alleged that one of the officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey, had acted at the behest of the senior officer, Neeraj Kumar. The question whether Vinod Kumar Pandey acted on the advice or behest of Neeraj Kumar or whether they were in connivance, is a matter of fact which has to be investigated.”Story continues below this adThe apex court noted that the High Court had “held that the allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce Vijay Aggarwal to ensure withdrawal of his brother’s complaint…were serious and not unfounded”, and that “such conduct was grave in nature and prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under IPC”.It said that even as the CBI had held a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and concluded that no offence was made out and that the allegations of abuse and coercion were unsubstantiated, the HC had held that “the correctness or veracity of the allegations could not have been gone into at the stage of a preliminary enquiry and that such allegations, being serious in nature, could not be brushed aside lightly”.The top court pointed out that Aggarwal and Saini had approached the High Court after police refused to register FIR on their complaints and said: “… Therefore, if the Constitutional Court has exercised its discretion in 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, we see no good reason to interfere with such discretion.”