Delhi High Court Orders Criminal Complaint Against 6 CBI Officers Over Alleged False Court Reply

The Delhi High Court has ordered 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 about correspondence with the government.

Justice Madhu Jain passed the order on October 6, 2026, in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors., and set 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 did not hold the officers guilty. Instead, it held that the threshold for a court complaint had been crossed, while the questions of knowledge, intention and participation would have to be decided by the competent Magistrate.

What the court has ordered

The Special Judge, CBI-02, Rouse Avenue Courts, has been directed to file 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. The complaint must be transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks of receipt of the judgment.

Section 191 deals with giving false evidence. Section 193 prescribes punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence. Section 209 concerns fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim in 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 no parallel proceedings on the same allegations are initiated.

How the dispute arose

The matter stems 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 that the sanction for his prosecution was invalid. The Special Judge discharged him on March 10, 2016.

The CBI then considered whether to challenge the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition. On June 8, 2016, the Ministry of Law and Justice opined that there appeared to be no reasonable ground to take the matter to a higher forum. The Department of Personnel and Training conveyed that opinion to the CBI on July 1, 2016.

Afterwards, Aggarwal sought release of the 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 needed for further proceedings.

The disputed alteration

The High Court examined successive drafts and internal file notings and found that an earlier draft had expressly recorded that the DoPT had rejected 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. According to the Court, that statement was later deleted and replaced with a handwritten insertion stating that correspondence with the administrative ministry was underway.

Justice Jain held that the record showed no such correspondence with the Ministry was underway on August 2, 2016. What existed, the Court said, was an internal CBI process concerning a proposal for reconsideration or a fresh legal opinion. The agency was entitled to seek reconsideration and pursue lawful remedies, the Court observed, but an internal proposal awaiting approval could not be represented as correspondence already underway with the Ministry. The change, the Court held, was not merely a matter of poor wording. It altered the factual position placed before the trial court.

The Court treated the statement as material because it was used to oppose the return of seized documents and could have influenced the court’s decision.

How the officers were linked to the reply

The Court said there was a reasonable basis to examine all six officers, subject to proof of knowledge, intention and participation, because the contemporaneous record showed different levels of involvement in preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply.

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 later 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 record reflected different degrees of involvement among the officers, but their respective roles justified a criminal complaint at this stage.

Why the High Court acted

Justice Jain held that preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, when read with the knowledge reflected in earlier drafts and file notings, provided a reasonable basis for a prima facie inference that the officers participated in advancing a claim they knew to be inconsistent with the existing position. The Court said these circumstances amounted to substantially more than a mere failure to establish a legal contention.

The Court also rejected arguments that Aggarwal had suffered no prejudice, that the CBI had corrected the position in a reply dated August 9, 2016, and that delay should bar the application. It held that the matter concerned the integrity of the judicial process, that the relevant drafts, notings and filings were still available, and that no further preliminary inquiry was necessary. In the Court’s view, an inquiry was expedient in the interests of justice.

The complaint proceedings will now be considered by the Magistrate. Any finding of guilt will depend on proof of each officer’s knowledge, intention and participation.