The Delhi High Court (HC) on Tuesday directed the Special Judge of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate criminal proceedings against six officers attached to the agency over allegations that they made false statements regarding correspondence with the government while challenging the discharge of a former officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in a disproportionate assets case.

The bench of the HC headed by Justice Madhu Jain issued orders to the CBI’s Special Judge to file a written complaint against six officials identified as Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad. The HC noted that there was a ‘reasonable foundation’ for the allegations against the officers in connection with offences under Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These provisions pertain to giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence and fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim in court.

Court orders to file complaint within 4 weeks

Justice Jain issued directives to the Special Judge to transmit the written complaint to the concerned jurisdictional magistrate within four weeks. The order came after a petition was filed by a former IRS officer, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, who had challenged the trial court’s ruling declining to initiate criminal proceedings against the CBI sleuths.

The CBI had prosecuted Aggarwal over allegations that he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, in January 2016, the Delhi HC discharged him, citing an invalid sanction.

Subsequently, the CBI challenged the HC’s ruling in the Supreme Court (SC). On June 16, the Union Law Ministry informed that there appeared to be no reasonable grounds to pursue the matter before a higher forum.

Dispute unfolded over seized documents

A month later, Aggarwal sought the release of his documents which had been seized by the CBI during the probe. Responding to him in August 2016, the agency said it had no objection to returning documents that had not been relied upon. However, it refused to release other documents, saying that correspondence with the administrative ministry regarding further legal action was underway.

The CBI contended that returning those documents would not be prudent as they could be required during the legal proceedings which transpire in the future. Following this, Aggarwal moved an application in August 2016 seeking criminal proceedings against the officers who had authorised the CBI’s reply. He alleged that the agency’s statement regarding the correspondence was ‘factually incorrect.’

Post-application, a trial court greenlit his plea for the release of the documents in August 2016. However, on October 25, 2025, it junked his application seeking initiation of criminal proceedings. Aggarwal then knocked on the doors of the Delhi HC, challenging the trial court’s decision.

The CBI opposed the petition before the HC, maintaining that the trial court was justified in declining to initiate criminal proceedings against its officers. After taking note of the matter, the HC directed the CBI’s Special Judge to file the complaint and transmit it to the appropriate magistrate within the four-week period.