R. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) DELHI Special Police Establishment, commonly known as Central Bureau of investigation (CBI), is a special police force constituted under the Delhi special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946 ). Initially, the said police force was setup by the Central Government for the purpose of investigating offences of bribery and corruption connected with the departments of the Central Government. Having regard to the useful work of this force, its sphere and jurisdiction was extended not only to the offences relating to person and property under the Indian Penal Code and various other statutes committed anywhere within the territory of the country. Over the period, CBI has emerged as one of the premier investigating agencies of the country by virtue of its track record of detecting, investigating and prosecuting some of the most important, complex and intricate criminal cases of the country. The citizens of the country and the courts regard it to be a specialized investigating agency equipped with skilled investigators and most modern and sophisticated infrastructure. In fact, the people look up to CBI for the investigation of most heinous, complex and intricate criminal cases. Hundreds of petitions are filed in various High Courts and the Apex Court seeking entrustment of investigation of criminal cases to CBI on the premises that the investigation carried out by the local police or its specialized wings or other investigating agencies have failed to perform their task in a just fair, proper and impartial manner or these agencies not possessing the requisite skill or having failed to workout the crime and book the offenders. The courts have in umpteen number of cases have allowed such prayers and have entrusted the investigation of criminal cases to CBI by reposing great faith in this organization. The personnel who man this premier organization are either recruited directly or are drawn from various State police forces or Central Police organizations having regard to their impeccable record of work and conduct in those forces/organizations. The personnel of this organization are usually treated in high esteem on account of those qualities and skill and proven record. However, any organization, howsoever high it may be, is after all manned by human beings who are not always infallible. Instances are not rare when the CBI personnel were also caught on wrong foot and their conduct commented upon adversely by the courts. However, any organization, howsoever high it may be, is after all manned by human beings who are not always infallible. Instances are not rare when the CBI personnel were also caught on wrong foot and their conduct commented upon adversely by the courts. The present case tends to highlight such like conduct of the two officers of CBI which conduct in the reckoning of the petitioner will constitute certain criminal offence (s ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 1/state (NCT of Delhi) to register FIR against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for having committed offences under sections 506/341/342/166 IPC and to launch prosecution against them in accordance with law and also to initiate suo moto action under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 against them. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that the petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 19. 10. 2000 in a case of disproportionate assets registered against his brother, namely, Ashok kumar Aggarwal, an Indian Revenue Service officer on the strength of cooked up story made by the CBI with ulterior motives. The petitioner applied for grant of bail before the Special Judge, Delhi and it is alleged that during the course of arguments on the bail application, the court of Special Judge was deliberately and intentionally mislead by CBI as a result of which the application of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected. However, later on the Special Judge having come to know the actual facts of the case supported by the documentary evidence filed along with the bail petition, granted bail to the petitioner vide an order dated 27. 11. 2000. The said order was conditional subject to the petitioner joining the investigation and also contained some directions for the CBI. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was summoned by respondent No. 2 at the behest and instance of respondent No. 3 without the prior permission/approval of the Special Judge for 7. 06. 2001 and 11. 06. 2001 for purposes unconnected with the investigation of the aforesaid case and for oblique purpose of coercing, compelling and forcing the petitioner to ensure that his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal withdraws a complaint earlier lodged by him against respondent no. 2 and 3 under Section 340 Cr. 06. 2001 and 11. 06. 2001 for purposes unconnected with the investigation of the aforesaid case and for oblique purpose of coercing, compelling and forcing the petitioner to ensure that his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal withdraws a complaint earlier lodged by him against respondent no. 2 and 3 under Section 340 Cr. P. C. in the court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is alleged that when the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 on 7. 06. 2001 at about 12:10 hours in compliance of the notice dated 6. 6. 2001 served upon him on the preceding night, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to keep sitting in duty officer s room. On being inquired about the purpose for his being summoned, respondent No. 2 disclosed to the petitioner that he has summoned him to keep the close watch on his movements so that in case of urgency, he is available at his disposal and further direction that petitioner should remain present in Delhi all the time and should not leave Delhi without seeking his permission for next two weeks. The petitioner was served with another notice for his appearance in the office of CBI on 11. 06. 2001 by 3. 00 P. M. and when in compliance of the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 in his office on 11. 06. 2001, the petitioner reminded respondent No. 2 that he was issuing the notice for his appearance in violation of the order dated 27. 11. 2000 passed by the Special judge and also showed him a copy of the said order but respondent No. 2, V. K. Pandey got furious and rolled out the copy of the order and threw the same on the face of the petitioner and uttered : - haram ZADEY, BAHEN. . . . . . . (vulgar abuses) TU HAMEN KANOON SIKHANE AYAA hai? YAHAN PAR TO HAMARA KANOON CHALTA HAI AUR YEH CBI OFFICE HAI, KOI ADALAT nahin HAI. ? ( 3 ) THE petitioner was directed to stand outside the room of respondent no. 2 and was called inside after about five minutes, when respondent No. 2 told the petitioner as under : -SALEY TUM LOG BAHUT KANOON BAAJ BANTE HO! TERE BHAI MEIN ITNI HIMMAT hai KI USNE HAMARE BOSS KE KHILAAF COURT MEIN CASE KIYA HAI. ? ( 3 ) THE petitioner was directed to stand outside the room of respondent no. 2 and was called inside after about five minutes, when respondent No. 2 told the petitioner as under : -SALEY TUM LOG BAHUT KANOON BAAJ BANTE HO! TERE BHAI MEIN ITNI HIMMAT hai KI USNE HAMARE BOSS KE KHILAAF COURT MEIN CASE KIYA HAI. TUM LOGON KO PATA nahin KI HAMARA BOSS NEERAJ KUMAR KYA CHEESE HAI. who TO ITNI TAKAT RAKHTA HAI ki who TERE BHAI KO 24 GHANTO MEIN NAUKERI SE BAHAR KARA DE. YEH TO HINDUSTAN hai, YAHAN TUM LOG ABHI TAK BACHE HUYE HO, AGAR PAKISTAN HOTA TO ABTAK TO TERA aur TERE BHAYION KA PARIVAAR SAMET SAFAYA HO GAYA HOTA. SALA CHUGH BHI KYA samajta HAI, USKO BHI SIDHA KAR DENGE. AB DEKHNA HAMARE BOSS KI TAKAT. WOH TUM logon KE SATH AUR KYA KYA KARTA HAI. APNE BHAI KO BOL DENA KI CHUGH KI COURT SE case VAPAS LE LE, NAHIN TO SAMAJH LENA KI CBI NAAM KI T. B. KI BIMARI TUM LOGON ko LAG GAI. ITNA SHARIR GALA DEGI KI TUMHARI BIWI BHI TUMHE DEKHNA BHOOL JAI gi. ? ( 4 ) THE petitioner started shouting and crying. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 made following utterances : -"saale ROTA KYON HAI. AGAR MERE KAHE MUTABIK BOSS KA HUKAM NAHI MANOGE TO tumhare PARIVAR KA JAIL MEIN ANDAR-BAHAR ANA JANA LAGA RAHEGA AUR TO PEHLE TO jamanat KARA KAR BAHAR AA GAYE HO AUR AB TO ASI ASI DAFA LAGENGI AUR ITNE CASE banege KI JAMANAT TO BHOOL JAO, JAIL MEIN HI SADTE RAHOGE. " ( 5 ) ON hearing the said utterances, the petitioner broke down and pleaded to respondent No. 2 that he had nothing to do with his brother Ashok Kumar aggarwal and the case filed by him, if any, in any court against his boss sh. Neeraj Kumar, was his personal matter. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 picked up the phone and started dialing his boss, i. e. , respondent No. 3 and spoke to him as under : -"sir, V. K. PANDEY BOL RAHA HOON, MAINE VIJAY AGGARWAL KO SAB KUCH SAMJHA DIYA hai OR WHO KAH RAHA HAI KI USKA APNE BHAI SE KOI MATLAB NAHI HAI. MAINE PHIR bhi ISKO hindi MEIN PURA SAMJHA DIYA HAI KI BOSS KI BAAT NA MANNE KA ANJAM KYA hoga, DEKH LO, PHIR SOACH LENA. MAINE PHIR bhi ISKO hindi MEIN PURA SAMJHA DIYA HAI KI BOSS KI BAAT NA MANNE KA ANJAM KYA hoga, DEKH LO, PHIR SOACH LENA. " ( 6 ) THE petitioner was thereafter allowed to go at about 3:30 P. M. and he was so frightened and demoralized that he straight away went to his lawyer who in turn, advised him to report the matter to the concerned police station for action in accordance with law. The petitioner accordingly, went to Police station Lodhi Colony at about 6:20 P. M. on that evening and met Sh. Ishwari dutt, duty officer and narrated him the aforesaid threats given by respondent no. 2 to him and requested the duty officer to register a report but the said duty officer told the petitioner that no report could be lodged against any CBI officials as they have no powers in this kind of a matter. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has also referred to the conduct of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which led to the filing of a Crl. Writ Petition No. 600/2001 by his brother ashok Kumar Aggarwal seeking direction to the District Judge or independent agency under the supervision of the High Court to hold inquiry into the conduct of the CBI and of the Interpol, Singapore and Interpol, Delhi, into the case of forgery, providing false information and using false documents as genuine and for prosecution of the guilty officials and also for award of compensation. The said writ petition filed by Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, brother of the petitioner was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 28. 05. 2001, directing the petitioner to approach the court of Special Judge seized of the matter for relief sought in the writ petition. Immediately, after the disposal of his writ petition, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal filed an application under Sections 340 and 195 Cr. P. C. praying for action against respondent No. 3. The said application came up before the Special Judge, Delhi on 04. 06. 2001 who after some hearing, adjourned the hearing on the application for 08. 06. 2001 on which date the learned Special Judge issued show cause notice to respondent No. 3 as to why a complaint be not filed against him which notice was received by the counsel for respondent No. 3 in the court itself on the same day. 06. 2001 who after some hearing, adjourned the hearing on the application for 08. 06. 2001 on which date the learned Special Judge issued show cause notice to respondent No. 3 as to why a complaint be not filed against him which notice was received by the counsel for respondent No. 3 in the court itself on the same day. According to the petitioner, issuing of notices dated 06. 06. 2001 and 10. 06. 2001 for his appearance before respondent No. 2 on 07. 06. 20010 and 11. 06. 2001 was with oblique motive of coercing and forcing the petitioner to ensure that his brother did not pursue the said complaint filed by his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal against respondent No. 3. It is alleged that various acts of commission and omission committed by respondent No. 2 were at the behest of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, both of them have committed several cognizable offences for having illegally detained and criminally intimidating the petitioner which has the effect of impinging upon his fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the prayer for registration of the case and taking up the investigation and prosecuting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the said offences. ( 8 ) BEING noticed on the petition by a Division Bench of this Court, the respondents opposed the petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 chose to file their reply. Initially, a reply in the form of status report was filed by Inspector omwati, the then SHO, P. S. Lodhi Colony on 20. 02. 2004 on behalf of respondent no. 1/state (Government of NCT of Delhi) which was later on supplemented by two affidavits filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters ). Respondent No. 2, of course, filed his separate reply to the petition. In the status report filed on 20. 02. 2004 by Inspector Omwati on behalf of respondent no. 1, it was stated that the record of Police Station Lodhi Colony had been checked and on the basis of the record, it was found that no complaint was received from Sh. Vijay Aggarwal at Police Station Lodhi Colony on or after 11. 06. 2001. It is not denied that Head Constable Ishwari Dutt, No. 179/sd had discharged duty as duty officer from 4 P. M to 12 midnight on 11. 06. Vijay Aggarwal at Police Station Lodhi Colony on or after 11. 06. 2001. It is not denied that Head Constable Ishwari Dutt, No. 179/sd had discharged duty as duty officer from 4 P. M to 12 midnight on 11. 06. 2001 but the daily diary report dated 11. 06. 2001 did not contain any report which was lodged by Sh. Vijay Aggarwal or any report to the effect that Head Constable Ishwari dutt, duty officer had refused to lodge report of Sh. Vijay Aggarwal. Under the circumstances, it was not possible for the police to take appropriate legal action. The status report further brings out that respondent No. 2 was contacted to verify the allegations mentioned in the petition and he disclosed that need to call some people at CBI office in June, 2001 arose due to the requirement of specimen of their handwriting for investigation. On 06. 06. 2001, the sample of handwriting of Sh. M. L. Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant was taken in CBI office. Sh. Vijay Aggarwal attended the office of CBI on 07. 06. 2001 but expressed his inability to give handwriting as his hand was bandaged. On 11. 06. 2001, the petitioner and Sh. Ram Garg came to the CBI office and sample handwriting of Sh. Ram Garg was taken but sample handwriting of Sh. Vijay Aggarwal could not be taken as his hand was still bandaged. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to come again as and when his hand was bandage free. The allegations made in the writ petition are stated to be false and motivated. In response to the said status report, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 23. 03. 2004 therein stating that a written complaint dated 23. 03. 2004 was made to the commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking registration of FIR against respondent nos. 2 and 3 in regard to the subject matter of the present writ. In response thereto, a reply affidavit was filed by Mr. Alok Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of police in August, 2004 which inter alia brings out that status report filed by inspector Omwati on 20. 02. 2004 was not based on facts and was incorrectly filed by the said SHO in this writ petition as well as in the other writ petition, without any authorization from the senior officers and so a prayer was made to treat the said status reports as withdrawn. 02. 2004 was not based on facts and was incorrectly filed by the said SHO in this writ petition as well as in the other writ petition, without any authorization from the senior officers and so a prayer was made to treat the said status reports as withdrawn. It is also stated in the said affidavit that as the main allegations of the petitioner are against the CBI officers, Delhi Police cannot investigate the allegations relating to the lapses/offences, if any, committed by the CBI officer during investigation of their own case. As regards alleged acts of humiliation and abusing the petitioner during the course of investigation in case RC No. 7s19/e0006/99, it is stated that allegations are non-cognizable and Delhi Police suo moto cannot investigate the matter. It was also stated that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his complaint dated 23. 02. 2004 addressed to the Commissioner of police, Delhi, were being forwarded to the Director, CBI for further necessary action. ( 9 ) IN his reply/counter statement, respondent No. 2, Inspector Vinod Kumar pandey, pleaded that he is an officer of the Delhi Police on deputation to CBI and his work is being supervised by the Superintendent of Police. He gives out in detail how the case of disproportionate assets stands registered against the petitioner, his brother and others and how the petitioner was arrested on 19. 10. 2000 and thereafter his bail application was dismissed and later on allowed by the court. It is stated that the present petition filed by the petitioner is malafide and having been made with ulterior motive so as to obstruct respondent No. 2 from discharging his official duties under law and investigate the case properly. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27. 11. 2000 subject to certain conditions. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was summoned to the office of CBI on 07. 06. 2001 and 11. 06. 2001 after following due procedure of law as also on but it is denied that the answering respondent had committed any violation of the order dated 27. 11. 2000 passed by the Special judge by doing so. It is specifically denied that the answering respondent had abused and intimidated the petitioner in any way or had any talk with respondent no. 11. 2000 passed by the Special judge by doing so. It is specifically denied that the answering respondent had abused and intimidated the petitioner in any way or had any talk with respondent no. 3 on phone as alleged by the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN the rejoinder, the petitioner has controverted the averments and pleas raised in the petition and has generally reiterated the averments and allegations made in the petition. The petitioner has controverted the legal position that the local police has no power or jurisdiction to investigate the offences committed by the CBI officers during the course of investigation of a case. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner also filed a petition for initiating the action against Smt. Omwati, SHO, P. S. Lodhi Colony for filing a false status report and against respondent No. 2 for filing a false reply affidavit but during the course of proceedings the said prayer was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) I have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, Ms. Mukta Gupta learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1/state (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional solicitor General representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, CBI officers at length and have bestowed my earnest consideration to their respective submissions. ( 13 ) THIS case is unique in several ways, i. e. , due to peculiarity of its facts and the various important questions of law which it has raised in regard to the rights of a citizen who is accused or suspected of the commission of a criminal offence (s) as also the rights and duties of the investigating officer seized of the investigation of the criminal cases and, more importantly, about the immunity of the investigating officer or other officer of an investigating agency from any acts of commission and omission during the course of investigation which might constitute criminal offence (s) either under the Indian penal Code or any other penal statute and, more importantly, if such acts of commission or omission are committed by an investigator of a specialized investigating agency like CBI, whether the local police has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the said offence (s) and alike. ( 14 ) BEFORE this Court dwell on various issues which have arisen in the present case, it is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing of the present petition, on 03. 12. 2004 Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior advocate appearing for CBI made a suggestion to the Court that CBI would look into the matter and give a status report to this Court to ascertain as to whether any cognizable offence is made out or not warranting registration of FIR and investigations into the matter. This suggestion was accepted by the Court and the Court directed that a status report be submitted by the Director, CBI or his nominee by the next date. It would appear, pursuant to the said direction of the Court, an inquiry was initially taken up by an officer of the rank of DIG in CBI but there being an objection from the side of the petitioner, the inquiry was entrusted to a Joint Director of CBI who was not involved in the investigation of cases against the petitioner or his brother and was also not connected with the officers complained against in the present petition. Besides, the petitioner also made a grievance that the inquiry was not being conducted properly as it was not confined to the allegations made in the complaint/petition and the inquiry officer was subjecting the petitioner to all types of irrelevant questions and the petitioner was, in fact, questioned for a couple of hours and all sort of questions not germane to the allegations made in the complaint/petition. This was, however, denied from the side of the respondent but the Court was assured that scope of the inquiry will not be exceeded. As the inquiry remained inconclusive, on request, time for concluding the enquiry was extended and an enquiry report dated 26. 04. 2005 of the inquiry conducted by Sh. S. C. Sinha, Joint Director, CBI/eow/iii, New Delhi stands filed on record. It would appear from the said enquiry report that the enquiry officer had examined 13 witnesses, collected 53 documents and had scrutinized the same with the assistance of Mr. Piyush Anand, SP, CBI, EOW-I, Delhi and after doing so, he concluded as under in regard to various allegations : -"allegation No. 1 that petitioner Sh. It would appear from the said enquiry report that the enquiry officer had examined 13 witnesses, collected 53 documents and had scrutinized the same with the assistance of Mr. Piyush Anand, SP, CBI, EOW-I, Delhi and after doing so, he concluded as under in regard to various allegations : -"allegation No. 1 that petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was wantonly and without sufficient reason summoned by the IO Inspector V. K. Pandey to CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 and was misbehaved with abused, ill treated and threatened on 11. 6. 2001 to pressurise his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the petition filed by him u/s 340 Crpc against Sh. Neeraj Kumar the then joint Director, CBI. That the Duty Officer P. S. Lodhi Colony refused to register his complaint when he approached him on 11. 6. 2001. That the petitioner had been threatened by Inspector V. K. Pandey on telephone on 12. 6. 2001. Enquiries had revealed that a telephonic request had been received on 6. 6. 2001 in SIU/ix branch by the IO of RC-6/e/99 Inspector V. K. Pandey from the geqd, Simla to send additional specimen writings of four persons viz. Sh. Vijay kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sri Ram garg. That such a request had been received from GEQD has also been confirmed by the then SP/siu-IX branch of CBI, Smt. Sundari Nanda. It was in pursuance of this request that Insp. V. K. Pandey informed these persons telephonically and requested them to attend the CBI office on the same day. Sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal, ca came and gave his specimen writing on 6. 6. 2001 itself whereas others did not turn up whereupon notices were issued to Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and his brother sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal for appearance on 7. 6. 2001. Enquiries have revealed that on 7. 6. 2001 Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal visited the CBI office. As per the entry in the Visitor s Register of the reception (Annexure W-10/6) of the gate of Block no. 3, CGO Comples, Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal entered the CBI building on 7. 6. 2001 at 1210 hrs, but the time at which he left is not clear. However, it had ben admitted by Sh. As per the entry in the Visitor s Register of the reception (Annexure W-10/6) of the gate of Block no. 3, CGO Comples, Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal entered the CBI building on 7. 6. 2001 at 1210 hrs, but the time at which he left is not clear. However, it had ben admitted by Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal himself that he had spent only about 35-40 minutes in CBI office on 7. 6. 2001, out of which he had spent only about 5 minutes with the IO. According to Inspector Pandey the specimen writings of sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal could not be taken on that day i. e. 7. 6. 2001 as his right had was bandaged. This averment has been denied by Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal. During enquiries, no third person stated anything on this point. Therefore, on this issue we have the word of Ins. Pandey against the word of petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. However, during the enquiry, Sh. V. K. Pandey has produced the copy of notice dated 7. 6. 2001 u/s 160 Crpc which had been given by him to Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal for appearance on 11. 6. 2001 (W10/7 ). On this notice under the signatures of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal it has been written by insp. V. K. Pandey ?hand bandaged?. Also a perusal of the notice and signatures thereon shows that they are made with an abnormal hand and hand writing is distorted. This fact has also been mentioned by Insp. V. K. Pandey in his CD dated 7. 6. 2001. In view of the foregoing circumstances it does appear that the hand of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was in a bandage on 7. 6. 2001. Regarding the visit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal to CBI office on 11. 6. 2001 it has been stated by him that he had spent approximately half an hour in CBI office on 11. 6. 2001. This information gets corroboration from the entry at serial number 49 in the Visitors register of 11. 6. 2001 of the reception (Annexure W/14) of Block No. 3, CGO Complex, according to which Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal entered in the CBI office on 11. 6. 2001 at 1505 hrs and left the office at 1535 hrs. Sh. 6. 2001. This information gets corroboration from the entry at serial number 49 in the Visitors register of 11. 6. 2001 of the reception (Annexure W/14) of Block No. 3, CGO Complex, according to which Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal entered in the CBI office on 11. 6. 2001 at 1505 hrs and left the office at 1535 hrs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal in his statement has stated that he had spent a total of 30 minutes in CBI office and out of total 30 minutes so spent, he had spent 10-12 minutes with Sh. V. K. Pandey, IO of this case. It deserves mention that no where in his petition has the petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal alleged that he was confined to a room or was restrained from moving while in cbi office. As far as the allegation of misbehaviour/ill treatment with sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal during the enquiry is concerned, Insp. Balasubramony who used to sit in the same room in which Insp. Pandey used to sit has been examined (W-6 ). Also Sh. M. K. Hasija (W-7) who was posted and functioning as Sr. Clerk Steno to SP/siu-IX (now EOU-VII) and whose room was adjoining the room No. 512-513 in which Insp. V. K. pandey and Insp. S. Balasubramony used to sit has been examined. Also the then SP/siu-IX Smt. S. Sundari Nanda (W-8) whose room was also very close to the room of Insp. V. K. Pandey/ Insp. S. Balasubramony has been examined. Insp. Balasubramo (W-6) has stated that he was present in the office on 11. 6. 2001 in the afternoon after 2. 00 P. M. He has further stated that Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal was neither manhandled nor abused for threatened by Insp. V. K. Pandey on that day. He has also stated that the right hand of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was in a bandage on 11. 6. 2001. Sh. M. K. Hasija (W-7) whose room was separated from the room of Insp. V. K. Pandey only by a fire proof wooden partition has stated that he did not remember Insp. V. K. pandey ever shouting at accused Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal whom he knew as he used to visit the branch. He further stated that if somebody shouted in room no. 512-513, he would have heard it. However, as far as 11. 6. 2001 is concerned he did not remember specifically anything. V. K. pandey ever shouting at accused Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal whom he knew as he used to visit the branch. He further stated that if somebody shouted in room no. 512-513, he would have heard it. However, as far as 11. 6. 2001 is concerned he did not remember specifically anything. Similarly, it was stated by Smt. Sundari Nanda (W-8) the then SP/siu-IX that Sh. Vijay Kuma aggarwal had never appeared before her to complain about alleged ill treatment or misbehaviour by Insp. V. K. Pandey. Regarding the allegation that petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was not summoned for taking of specimen writings and that he was only required to produce the share holders of his companies whose address had been given as B- 1/134, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as per the notice it has been stated by the IO insp. V. K. Pandey that the notice mentioned only about the production of share holders because the petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal needed to be informed in this regard in advance to be able to do so. However, no such advance notice was required to be given to obtain specimen writings. Therefore, it was not considered necessary to mention about this fact in the notice. It has been alleged by Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal in his petition as a proof of ill treatment with him that he had visited the Police Station Lodhi Colony around 6. 20 PM on 11. 6. 2001 itself and had met HC Ishwari Dutt, Duty Officer who was sitting in the duty room in the corridor and narrated to him the aforesaid threats/ill treatment and requested him to write a complaint and give a copy of the same and take necessary action in accordance with law. However, sh. Ishwari Dut, HC had refused to register his complaint stating that he had no powers to register a complaint against a CBI officer. During the instant enquiry efforts were made to ascertain the truth in this regard and for the purpose statements of HC Ishwari Dut (W-9) the then Duty officer, Insp. Ramphal Singh (W-2), the then SHO PS Lodhi Colony and Insp. Om Wati (W-5) who had also remained posted as SHO, PS, Lodhi Colony subsequent to the alleged date of ill treatment of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and had filed a reply on behalf of Delhi Police in CWP 675/2001 were recorded. Ramphal Singh (W-2), the then SHO PS Lodhi Colony and Insp. Om Wati (W-5) who had also remained posted as SHO, PS, Lodhi Colony subsequent to the alleged date of ill treatment of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and had filed a reply on behalf of Delhi Police in CWP 675/2001 were recorded. Further, General Diaries a and B of PS Lodhi Colony for the relevant date i. e. 11. 6. 2001 were also perused. It was seen that the GDs did not contain any entry about the alleged visit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal to PS Lodhi Colony on that day. It was stated by HC Ishwari Dut (W-9) that he had remained as Duty Officer on 11. 6. 2001 from 3. 55 PM to 11. 45 PM. He further stated that during his duty period as Duty officer, Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal did not come to him with any complaint against any CBI officer. He further stated that the room of the SHO was opposite the entry of Police Station and anybody who was aggrieved by the refusal of the Duty officer to record a complaint would have easily gone to the SHO. Insp. Ramphal singh (W-2) stated that he was present in the Police Station on 11. 6. 2001 evening. However at no point of time petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal had come to him with a complaint about misbehaviour by CBI officers with him. He also stated that when CWP No. 675/2001 was received in the Police Station he had made enquiries in this regard from HC Ishwari Dutt who had categorically stated that vijay Kumar Aggarwal had not been turned away from Police Station and with his complaint not being recorded. It is also noteworthy that it has been admitted by Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal in his statement that he had made no attempt to meet the ACP or DCP of the concerned Police Station of the area and had not lodged any written complaint even by ordinary or registered post either with the concerned ACP of the area, DCP of the area or the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was also at liberty to file a criminal complaint in the concerned court of competent jurisdiction but this was also not done. In fact perusal of the Annexure W-1/12 attached with the statement of Sh. Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was also at liberty to file a criminal complaint in the concerned court of competent jurisdiction but this was also not done. In fact perusal of the Annexure W-1/12 attached with the statement of Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal shows that the first complaint with the senior officers regarding the alleged misbehaviour by Insp. V. K. Pandey at the behest of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director was lodged with Commissioner of Delhi only on 23. 2. 2004 as far as the allegation that the petitioner had been threatened on telephone by Insp. V. K. pandey on 12. 6. 2001 is concerned the allegation has been vehemently denied by Insp. V. K. Pandey. In view of denial of Insp. V. K. Pandey and absence of any corroborative evidence this allegation is not substantiated. As far as the allegation that the alleged misbehaviour with the petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal on 11. 6. 2001 had been done at the behest of sh. Neeraj Kumar is concerned, the petitioner has produced no evidence in support of this allegation except the alleged telephonic conversation between insp. V. K. Pandey and Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director, CBI in his presence. When a person sees and hears a telephonic conversation he can only be sure of the identity of the person who is talking in his immediate presence and there is no way he can be sure of the identity of the person at the other end. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty with whom had Insp. V. K. Pandey allegedly spoken in the presence of petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. Further, this allegation has been categorically denied by both Insp. V. K. Pandey (W-10) and sh. Neeraj Kumar (W-12 ). Keeping in view the lack of independent evdience and the specific denial of the concerned officers the allegation that Sh. Vijay Kumar aggarwal had been misbehaved/threatened at the behest of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director, CBI is not proved. It is thus, seen that (a) that the petitioner had been called to the CBI officer by Insp. V. K. Pandey on 11. 6. 2001 for the legitimate purpose of investigation i. e. producing certain share holders and obtaining specimen writings, (b) that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged misbehaviour/ill treatment/threatening of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal by Insp. V. K. Pandey, ? V. K. Pandey on 11. 6. 2001 for the legitimate purpose of investigation i. e. producing certain share holders and obtaining specimen writings, (b) that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged misbehaviour/ill treatment/threatening of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal by Insp. V. K. Pandey, ? that all the natural witnesses to the occurrences which might have taken place on 11. 6. 2001 in the office room of Insp. V. K. Pandey had denied any kind of misbehaviour/ill treatment by Insp. V. K. Pandey with Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, (d) that no evidence existed to suggest that an attempt was made by Insp. V. K. Pandey to pressurise the petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal to in turn pressurise his brother to withdraw the petition filed by him u/s 340 Crpc, (e) that Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggaral had not complained to the then SP SIU-IX about the alleged misbehaviour/ill treatment by cbi offices with him, (g) that he had made no attempt to lodge any oral or written complaint either with SHO PS Lodhi Colony or senior officers having jurisdiction over the area viz. , the concerned ACP, DCP or Commissioner of police, Delhi either on that day or any subsequent day upto 23. 2. 2004, (h) that the total time spent by Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggaral in CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 ranged from 30 to 40 minutes out of which time spent with the IO was 5 minutes on 7. 6. 2001 and 10-12 minutes on 11. 6. 2001 and (i) that lastly insp. V. K. Pandey had talked to Sh. Neeraj Kumar the then Joint Director, CBI in his immediate presence was merely a conjecture of the petitioner without any supporting evidence. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is stated that there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate the allegation no. 1 i. e. of wrongful confinement/wrongful restraint/ misbehaviour /pressurising by insp. V. K. Pandey of the petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal either on his own or at the behest of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, IPS the then JD of CBI and as a result this allegation is lacking in substance. Allegation No. 2 that petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was summoned to the CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 in violation of the order Special Judge, Tis Hazari, delhi passed on 27. 11. Neeraj Kumar, IPS the then JD of CBI and as a result this allegation is lacking in substance. Allegation No. 2 that petitioner Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was summoned to the CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 in violation of the order Special Judge, Tis Hazari, delhi passed on 27. 11. 2000 and was thus illegally confined restrained. The Court Order to which a reference has been made in the petition is reproduced below:"arguments on bail application heard. Ld. Special Prosecutor has submitted that during the last 14 days substantial investigation has been done and various keys suspected to be of strong rooms have been recovered. However, investigating officers have not been able to locate any of those vaults. He has further contended that investigation is at a crucial stage and much more is yet to be investigated. Ld. Prosecutor has given his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant - accused provided stringent conditions are imposed upon him that he would cooperate in the investigation and shall not try to impede the investigation either directly or indirectly. Ld. counsel for accused submits that he is in custody for the last about 40 days (approximately) and there is no possibility of conclusion of investigation within 60 days from the date of his initial detention. He has submitted that accused is ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions imposed by the court in the event of grant of bail. This case is based upon the allegations that co-accused Ashok Aggarwal being a public servant has amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources with the help of applicant and other co-accused in furtherance of conspiracy. During the course of arguments prosecution has admitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of investigation within 60 days from the date of arrest of the applicant accused. Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of respective parties and facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-accused is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. Therefore, keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of respective parties and facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-accused is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount, each subject to following conditions:i)That applicant-accused shall join the investigation as and when required; ii)that applicant-accused shall report to CBI for the purpose of investigation and explanation relating to the evidence collected by CBI on day to day basis for one week from the date of his release on bail. Thereafter, during next three weeks, applicant-accused shall report to CBI for the purpose of investigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday respectively; iii)that the applicant-accused shall not try to contact any of the witnesses of the case directly or indirectly and shall not interfere in the investigation process; iv)that applicant-accused shall not leave the country without the permission of the court and shall surrender his passport to the CBI. If at all because of some unforeseen circumstances, applicant-accused is not in a position to join the investigation as per the conditions imposed, he shall either personally or through his counsel can seek exemption from the court from personal appearance before CBI for the purpose of investigation. The above referred condition No. (ii) regarding appearance of the applicant-accused in CBI office for the purpose of investigation shall remain in force for a period of one month from the date of release of the accused. If at all CBI requires further presence of accused for the purpose of investigation, it shall be at liberty to approach the court and seek necessary orders. That this allegation is proved or otherwise is essentially based on an interpretation of the order of Hon ble Special Judge, Delhi dated 27. 11. 2000. The issue here is as to whether the said order had placed certain restrictions on the IO with regard to summoning of the accused for the purpose of investigation or otherwise. In this regard attention is invited to the following except from the bail orders"ld Prosecutor has given his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant-accused provided stringent conditions are imposed on him that he would cooperate in the investigation and shall not try to impede the investigation either directly or indirectly". "ld. In this regard attention is invited to the following except from the bail orders"ld Prosecutor has given his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant-accused provided stringent conditions are imposed on him that he would cooperate in the investigation and shall not try to impede the investigation either directly or indirectly". "ld. Counsel for accused submits that he is in custody for the last 40 days (approx) and there is no possibility of conclusion of investigation within 60 days from the date of his initial detention. He has submitted that accused is ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions imposed by the court in the event of grant of bail. "a reading of the above excerpt together very clearly shows that the intention of the bail order dated 27. 11. 2000 was to impose reasonable conditions on the accused with regard to joining of the investigation to facilitate early finalisation of the same. Further, the intention of the bail order was not to restrict or restrain the IO rather the intention of the bail order was to facilitate the investigation and investigation officer. Therefore, the conditions which find mention in sub paras (i), (ii) and (iii) and (iv) of para 4 and in the penultimate para of bail order have to be read in the light of the above. Further, the intention of the Hon ble Court also becomes clear from the very first condition mentioned in the court oder (i) "that applicant-accused shall join the investigation as and when required" i. e. as per the conditions of the bail order dated 27. 11. 2000 accused was required to join investigation whenever required. It also becomes clear that the conditions mentioned in sub para (ii) para 4 of the bail order were conditions imposed on the accused so that he regularly joins the investigation after he is enlarged on bail. As far as the concluding lines of the bail order ?if at all CBI requires further presence of accused for the purpose of investigation it shall be at liberty to approach the court and seek necessary orders. These lines, it is my considered view cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read in conjunction with the immediate preceding line of the bail order which is viz. , ?the above referred condition no. These lines, it is my considered view cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read in conjunction with the immediate preceding line of the bail order which is viz. , ?the above referred condition no. (ii) regarding the appearance of the applicant-accused in cbi office for the purpose of investigation shall remain in force for a period of one month from the date of release of the accused. If the two sentences are read in conjunction with each other it appears that the intent of the court was that if during the period of one month mentioned in condition no. (ii) CBI requires the presence of the accused on days other than Monday, Wednesday and friday it was at liberty to approach the Court. This interpretation appears to be the most plausible interpretation in view of the fact that the very first bail condition directs the applicant-accused to join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, the IO does not appear to have violated the court order dated 27. 11. 2000 by summoning the petitioner Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal on two dates viz. , 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 specially so since it was for the legitimate purpose of carrying out investigation. Therefore, the allegation that wrongful confinement of the petitioner had been caused because of his summoning by the IO insp. V. K. Pandey on 7. 6. 01 and 11. 6. 01 is not proved. In fact, even if for arguments sake, it is assumed that the calling of the petitioner on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 was an act violative of the court order dated 27. 11. 2000 even with this assumption offence of wrongful confinement, wrongful restraint is not made out because Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal had joined the investigation on both of these voluntarily and if at all the IO had violated the court order he had committed contempt of court for which the remedy lies with the Spl Judge, delhi. The enquiry officer finally concluded as under : -"enquiries have thus revealed that the allegations levelled by the petitioner of having been summoned by the IO Insp. V. K. Pandey without sufficient reason, of illegally confining/restraining him, ill-treating/threatening him to pressurize him to in turn pressurize his brother to withdraw the complaint filed by him u/s 340 Crpc at the behest of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Jt. V. K. Pandey without sufficient reason, of illegally confining/restraining him, ill-treating/threatening him to pressurize him to in turn pressurize his brother to withdraw the complaint filed by him u/s 340 Crpc at the behest of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Jt. Director and lastly violating the court order dated 27. 11. 2000 are not proved. Since the allegations mentioned in the petition have not been substantiated therefore no cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the subject petition. " ( 15 ) MR. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, placing great reliance on the above findings of the enquiry officer of the CBI and the sequence of events which led to the said enquiry and the report, has emphatically urged that the present petition does not survive and should be dismissed forthwith without any further consideration of the matter. In this connection, it is submitted that once vide an order dated 03. 12. 2004, this Court accepted the suggestion of the CBI to examine the matter and file a status report so as to ascertain whether any cognizable offence (s) is made out or not warranting the registration of FIR and investigations into the matter and this Court having supervised and monitored the enquiry, as would be evident from the order dated 14. 03. 2005 and thereafter the Joint Director having submitted his report of enquiry with the approval of the Director, CBI and despite an opportunity being granted to the petitioner to file a response, the petitioner chose not to file any response/objection to the said enquiry report as is reflected in the order dated 16. 05. 2005, the petitioner cannot be allowed to impugn the said enquiry report of the Joint director, CBI. In any case, it is submitted that it is unfair to the prosecution to permit the petitioner to make submissions on the correctness of the enquiry report without filing any formal objections and after making a clear statement that the petitioner was not filing any response to the said report. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel representing the petitioner has urged that the petitioner cannot be precluded or estopped from challenging the enquiry report merely because he chose not to file a response/objections against the said report. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel representing the petitioner has urged that the petitioner cannot be precluded or estopped from challenging the enquiry report merely because he chose not to file a response/objections against the said report. ( 16 ) IN the opinion of this Court, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner by not filing any response will be deemed to have either expressly or impliedly accepted the report of the enquiry officer. The right of the petitioner to assail the said report of the enquiry officer cannot be taken away and submissions of the petitioner in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the said report cannot be thrown away only for the reason that no response/objections were filed. In any case, jurisdiction of this Court to examine the said enquiry report cannot be questioned. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel has emphatically urged that the enquiry officer has exceeded his brief because he did not restrict the scope of enquiry to ascertaining if cognizable offence (s) was made out from the complaint/petition and rather he had embarked upon a full-fledged investigation which was legally impermissible. In this connection, it is pointed out that the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the enquiry was not conducted in terms of the suggestions of Mr. Gopal Subramanium made on 03. 12. 2004 and further clarification rendered by this Court vide an order dated 14. 03. 2005, rather it exceeded the scope of the enquiry by conducting a full-fledged investigation, by collecting and scrutinizing documents, examining the witnesses and discussing the evidences and interpreting the order of the Special Judge which was clearly beyond the scope and object of finding out if any cognizable offence was made out on the basis of the complaint/petition. It is urged that the report is legally untenable being against the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. On a thorough consideration of the matter, this Court finds force in the submission of the petitioner that the enquiry conducted by the Joint Director, cbi is not merely a preliminary enquiry aimed as above but is rather a report of investigation which an investigator seized of the investigation of a criminal case which has already been registered, would ordinarily resort to. The Court could have never intended that such a full-fledged investigation be carried out in the matter instead of an enquiry in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. The only purpose of permitting the CBI to hold an in-house enquiry was to ascertain whether any cognizable offence (s) was made out from the complaint/petition which warranted registration of FIR or not. Therefore, the enquiry officer was not expected to transform a preliminary enquiry into a full-fledged investigation with a view to ascertain the veracity and correctness of the allegations made in the complaint/petition. Such a course does not seem to be legally permissible before registration of case. This has been so held by Apex Court in the case of bhajanlal and reiterated several of its decisions including the recent decision in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State; JT 2006 (2) SC 548. This Court must, therefore, hold that the enquiry officer while conducting enquiry exceeded his brief by not confining the enquiry to the purpose for which it was instituted and rather proceeded to examine the veracity of the allegations which could only be done during the course of investigation after registration of the case. ( 17 ) MR. Gopal Subramanium, learned ASG representing the petitioner, on the strength of two Supreme Court decisions in the cases of AIIMS Vs. Union of India and others; 1996 (11) SCC 582 and Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre Vs. State of maharashtra and Ors. ; 2004 (7) SCC 768 has urged that a writ petition under article 226 seeking registration of FIR should not be entertained. It is pointed out that in the above decisions, the Court has in categorical terms held that the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by way of writ petition bypassing the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference is also invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in LPA no. 482/2006, Mahabir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police wherein the Court stated that since the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. , the extraordinary jurisdiction of issuing writ should not be exercised. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate refuted the above submission as legally untenable as misconceived for the reason, firstly, that in the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos. P. C. , the extraordinary jurisdiction of issuing writ should not be exercised. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate refuted the above submission as legally untenable as misconceived for the reason, firstly, that in the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, no such plea has been taken by the respondents that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking registration of fir is not maintainable and secondly, that the respondents shall be estopped from raising any such objection and plea at the stage of final submissions on the petition, more particularly so when they themselves made a suo moto suggestion/statement on 03. 12. 2004 that the CBI would itself inquire into the matter to ascertain whether the complaint/petition discloses the commission of a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR. It is also pointed out that the said submission made on behalf of the CBI officers is untenable in law and based on misunderstanding of the correct ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgments because those judgments were passed on their own facts in as much as in the case of AIIMS Vs. Union of India and Ors. , the petitioner therein had neither filed a complaint to the police nor made a complaint to the magistrate under Section 190 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the code, it was not a case where the petitioner was entitled to approach the writ court for the relief claimed therein. Though in the present case, the petitioner approached the police and met the duty officer Sh. Ishwari Dutt for lodging his complaint and narrated the entire incident but since the duty officer refused to register the complaint orally observing that the police have no power to register a complaint against CBI officials, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of registration of FIR. It is also pointed out that apart from claiming the relief of registration of FIR, the petitioner had also sought several other reliefs inter alia for protection of his own life and liberty and that of his family members; as also for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and for direction to the respondents not to summon the petitioner without the permission of the concerned court. 2 and 3; and for direction to the respondents not to summon the petitioner without the permission of the concerned court. Having considered the respective submissions and, more particularly the view taken by the Supreme Court in the latest pronouncement in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State, this Court has necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition seeking registration of FIR on the basis of complaint made to the police disclosing a certain cognizable offence (s) and for directing investigation therein. ( 18 ) THE next submission made by learned ASG is that the preliminary enquiry is mandatory prior to registration of FIR against the public official in respect of acts done in course of official duty. In this connection, reliance has been placed on three decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) State of U. P. Vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi; AIR 1964 SC 221 ; (2) P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras; 1970 (1) SCC 595 ; and (3) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 335. In case of P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras, the Supreme court held at para 17 page 601 as under : -"before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. If the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti- corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. If the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti- corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. The enquiring officer must not act under any preconceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such a manner as to lead to an inference that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by adopting measures which are of doubtful validity or sanction. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable. In ordinary departmental proceedings against a government servant charged with delinquency, the normal practice before the issue of a charge-sheet is for some one in authority to take down statements of persons involved in the matter and to examine documents which have a bearing on the issue involved. It is only thereafter that a charge-sheet is submitted and a full-scale enquiry is launched. When the enquiry is to be held for the purpose of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be restored to the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the delinquent officer and documents bearing on the same to find out whether there is prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer. Thereafter the ordinary law of the land must take its course and further inquiry be proceeded with in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lodging a first information report. " ( 19 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, has reaffirmed the above view and inter alia held as follows: - ?77. In this connection, it will be appropriate to recall the views expressed by Mitter, J. in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras in the following words:"before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. . . . . . . . . . The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable. "78. Mudholkar, J. in a separate judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi at p. 86 while agreeing with the conclusion of Subba Rao, j. (as he then was) has expressed his opinion stating:"in the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of the opinion that it is open to a police office to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it. "79. We are in agreement with the views, expressed by Mitter, J. and mudholkar, J. in the above two decisions. ? ( 20 ) MR. Ram Jethmalani has not disputed the above legal proposition but submitted that the reliance placed by the learned ASG on the aforesaid judgments is misplaced inasmuch as those cases dealt with the cases of public servants suspected to have committed offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, are distinguishable. In any event, reliance has been placed upon a division Bench decision of this Court presided over by Justice Y. K. Sabharwal (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State; 54 (1994) delhi Law Times 380. In para 26 of the said judgment, this Court observed as under : -"26. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Sethi on the decisions of the supreme Court in the case of Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, 1970 (3) SCR 931 and in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, 1964 (3) scr 71 noticed by the Supreme Court in the afore-quoted passages. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Sethi on the decisions of the supreme Court in the case of Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, 1970 (3) SCR 931 and in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, 1964 (3) scr 71 noticed by the Supreme Court in the afore-quoted passages. In these decisions wile dealing with the cases of public servant under Prevention of corruption Act the Supreme Court held that before registering a case against a public servant which may do incalculable harm not only to him but also to the department he belongs to, the holding of preliminary enquiry before going ahead with the registration of the offence leading to a full scale investigation under chapter XII of the Code is permissible. In the present case, we are not concerned with such eventuality. In the cited decisions, the Supreme Court has not held that when an information about commission of cognizable offence is given to an officer incharge of a Police Station he can withhold registration of a case and embark upon an enquiry and refuse registration as a result of the said enquiry. Many offences are non cognizable. Many are cognizable. The acceptance of contention of Mr. Sethi would mean that on receipt of information about commission of cognizable offence a Police Officer may embark upon an enquiry and refuse registration of a case on the ground that as enquiry shows commission of a non cognizable offence or it shows that the information is not genuine. " ( 21 ) THIS Court on consideration of the respective pleas is of the opinion that a preliminary enquiry is not a sine qua non in all cases and the same can only be embarked upon or insisted upon where the allegations of corruption are made against senior public servants with a view to find out if allegations made in the complaint had some substance therein or were not totally baseless having been made with a view to harm the reputation of the public servant. In the case in hand, allegations made in the complaint are not the allegations of corruption against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and rather the allegations are in relation to several acts of commission and omission on the part of investigating officer and another which might constitute certain cognizable offence (s) under the Indian penal Code and other statutes. In the case in hand, allegations made in the complaint are not the allegations of corruption against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and rather the allegations are in relation to several acts of commission and omission on the part of investigating officer and another which might constitute certain cognizable offence (s) under the Indian penal Code and other statutes. ( 22 ) THE next submission put forth on behalf of respondents is that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the allegations made in the present petition were part and parcel of another writ petition No. 938/2001 filed by the co-accused Ashok Aggarwal and which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09. 04. 2002. In this connection, attention of the Court is invited to para 50 of the allegations made in writ petition no. 938/2001 and those made in para 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the present petition which on comparison of the same, no doubt, appear to be similar. It is urged that once those allegations have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the connected writ petition, the said decision of the Division Bench would also cover the present petition and the petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the said order. It is pertinent to refer to the said decision of the division Bench. The order reads as under : -Petitioner is facing two cases RCS18 and RCS19 which are under investigation by CBI. All he wants in this petition is that investigation of these cases be taken away from respondents 3 to 5 and handed over to some high ranking CBI officer. Petitioner was on deputation holding the post of Deputy Director in the enforcement Directorate at the the relevant time. He claims that he was handling the investigation of a number of sensitive cases of influential individuals including politicians, etc. , and that his Director that time one mr. Bez Boruah was making all out efforts to scuttle the investigation in those cases. He made representations against him to Revenue Secretary and meanwhile a raid was conducted under his supervision on the residence of one Subhas Barjatya resulting in seizure of some incriminating documents and disclosing the transaction of US$ 1. 50 lacs and involving one Abhishek Verma also. Bez Boruah was making all out efforts to scuttle the investigation in those cases. He made representations against him to Revenue Secretary and meanwhile a raid was conducted under his supervision on the residence of one Subhas Barjatya resulting in seizure of some incriminating documents and disclosing the transaction of US$ 1. 50 lacs and involving one Abhishek Verma also. Accused barjatya made a complaint against him to Director Bez Boruah alleging that an fax was planted at his place during search. Thereafter, his Director Bez Boruah tried to influence him to do away with some of the FERA cases but on his refusal to do so, he forwarded a complaint of Barjatya made by him in January 1998 for cbi enquiry in which CVC ordered it without obtaining comments from his Revenue department. He was transferred out from the Enforcement Directorate and put on compulsory wait and was later arrested and repatriated. Petitioner's primary grievance is that respondents 3 to 5 were conducting the investigation against him unfairly and improperly and were transgressing all limits to abuse the investigative powers. They were allegedly indulging in forging documents against him to implicate him in false cases and were exercising the investigative power in a malafide manner in support whereof he has given a number of instances. All this, according to him, had taken his confidence given rise to a reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair and from these officers of CBI. R3 to 5 have all filed their counter affidavits denying the allegations. According to them, petitioner was filing one petition after the other by way of pressure tactics to pressurise the investigating agency and to impede the investigation. They have explained the organisational set up of CBI to show that a complaint was registered after due approval of the competent authorities and that a secret verification or an open enquiry was ordered at the level of director, more particularly in the case of IAS and Class-I officers and that there was a supervisory hierarchy making independent critical assessment of the investigating process at every stage. It is asserted by them that the investigation in two RCSs was being conducted fairly and according to law and that the petition was only an abuse of process of court. By court order dated 4. 4. It is asserted by them that the investigation in two RCSs was being conducted fairly and according to law and that the petition was only an abuse of process of court. By court order dated 4. 4. 2002, competent authority of CBI was directed to file an affidavit to show the investigation status in two RCSs. In response, two affidavits have been filed on behalf of R-2 disclosing that Director, CBI had passed appropriate orders in RCS 18/99 and had forwarded the matter to revenue Secretary and other concerned authorities for requisite orders/action. In the other case, RCS-19, however, the Joint Director was presently seized of the matter and it was yet to be submitted to Director, CBI for necessary investigation. In view of this position, both sides agree to the disposal of this petition by the following order : - ?revenue Secretary and/or other concerned authorities who are seized of rcs 18/99 are directed to examine and consider the record of investigation fairly and objectively taking in regard all relevant factors and circumstances and then pass appropriate orders under law within two months from receipt of this order. Director, CBI is also directed to examine the investigation record of RCS 19/99 and to consider all relevant aspects and factors in the light of petitioner's complaints and then to pass appropriate orders under law in the matter within two months from receipt of this order. ? ( 23 ) IT is true that some of the averments and allegations which form part of the present petition were also referred to in the writ petition No. 938/2001 filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal but relief claimed in the two petitions are not identical but are substantially different, it cannot be said that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 09. 04. 2002 will cover the present petition. In any case, the said order of the Division Bench has not gone into the merits of the allegations made in the petition of Ashok Kumar aggarwal and, therefore, it will not be correct to say that the present petition stands already disposed of or be deemed to have been disposed of by the said order. This Court, therefore, see no merits in this contention of the respondents. ( 24 ) MR. This Court, therefore, see no merits in this contention of the respondents. ( 24 ) MR. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General with all the vehemence at his command then urged that the present petition is an abuse of the process of the Court besides being an attempt to obstruct justice and intimidate the investigating officer by using pressure tactics. In this connection, it is submitted that the investigation of a crime is vital to the administration of criminal justice and the Rule of Law and the investigators have to function in a free and fearless manner, undeterred by any pressure or intimidations of whatever kind. It is pointed out that the petitioner along with others are accused of serious crime of money laundering which has attended by manifestations of dexterity and sophistication and in such a situation, it would be very easy for any accused to make allegations of malafides/bias to deter a sincere and dedicated investigator from making an in-depth investigation. It is urged that the proceedings like the present one, if permitted, would destroy the very foundation of criminal justice delivery system. The allegations are refuted from the side of the petitioner and it is pointed out that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were conducting the investigation against him in an unfair and improper manner transgressing all limits by abusing the investigative powers and have used coercive tactics so that the petitioner may persuade his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal from not pursuing his petition under Section 340 Cr. P. C. and for initiation of contempt of court proceedings filed by him in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi. There cannot be denial of the position that Rule of law must prevail in all eventualities and the investigator of a crime must be given free hand to investigate any crime but that would imply that the investigation is conducted within the well-defined parameters of law, i. e. , in accordance with the procedure established by Code of criminal Procedure. In a civilized society, law does not permit an investigator to use unfair and coercive modes to achieve desired results for working out a crime or with the object of dissuading an accused or suspect of a crime from exercising his fundamental rights which he continues to enjoy even during the course of investigation. In a civilized society, law does not permit an investigator to use unfair and coercive modes to achieve desired results for working out a crime or with the object of dissuading an accused or suspect of a crime from exercising his fundamental rights which he continues to enjoy even during the course of investigation. It will be a sad day for any civilized society if the investigators of crime are let loose on accused/suspects to press into service any such methods as above. The investigators of crime draw their jurisdiction, power and authority to investigate the crime from law. The law prescribes a well-defined procedure for carrying out the investigations. It also specifies the parameters within which the investigator has to function to workout a crime and this must be for the obvious reasons that the framers of law must be fully conscious of the methods and modes which could have been used by a certain unscrupulous investigator in his zeal to workout a crime. Several in-built safeguards have, therefore, been incorporated and find their prime place in our constitution and other laws. The investigators are, therefore, not above law. If during the course of investigation of a crime, it is alleged or established that they have committed one or the other act of commission or omission which would constitute a criminal offence, such an investigator cannot escape his liability under law for the said offence. ( 25 ) NOW, I may turn to the main issue as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner on a prima facie view of the matter can be said to constitute any cognizable offence (s) warranting the registration of the FIR or not and whether any further investigation is called for in the matter. Mr. Ram jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner has urged that in this case the petitioner was summoned by respondent No. 2 to CBI office on 07. 06. 2001 and 11. 06. 2001, who misbehaved with him and abused him, ill-treated and threatened him on 11. 06. 2001 in order to pressurize his brother Sh. Ashok kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the petition filed by him under Section 340 Cr. P. C. against Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director, CBI, which act of respondent no. 2 was in complete disregard and disobedience of the order of Special Judge, delhi dated 27. 11. 06. 2001 in order to pressurize his brother Sh. Ashok kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the petition filed by him under Section 340 Cr. P. C. against Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director, CBI, which act of respondent no. 2 was in complete disregard and disobedience of the order of Special Judge, delhi dated 27. 11. 2000 granting bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: - (i)that applicant-accused shall join the investigation as and when required; (ii)that applicant-accused shall report to CBI for the purpose of investigation and explanation relating to the evidence collected by CBI on day to day basis for one week from the date of his release on bail. Thereafter, during next three weeks, applicant-accused shall report to CBI for the purpose of investigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday respectively; (iii)that the applicant-accused shall not try to contact any of the witnesses of the case directly or indirectly and shall not interfere in the investigation process; (iv)that applicant-accused shall not leave the country without the permission of the court and shall surrender his passport, to the CBI. If at all because of some unforseen circumstances, applicant-accused is not in a position to join the investigation as per the conditions imposed, he shall either personally or through his counsel can seek exemption from the court from personal appearance before C. B. I. for the purpose of investigation. The above-referred condition No. (ii) regarding appearance of the applicant-accused in CBI office for the purpose of investigation shall remain in force for a period of one month from the date of release of the accused. If at all CBI requires further presence of accused for the purpose of investigation, it shall be at liberty to approach the court and seek necessary orders. ? ( 26 ) ON the strength of the condition (iv), it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was not justified in summoning the petitioner to the CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 without obtaining the prior approval from the Special Judge, Delhi and it was done with a malafide objective to pressurize him so that the petitioner in turn could pressurize his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the petition under section 340 Cr. P. C. filed by him in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi. As against this, Mr. 6. 2001 without obtaining the prior approval from the Special Judge, Delhi and it was done with a malafide objective to pressurize him so that the petitioner in turn could pressurize his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the petition under section 340 Cr. P. C. filed by him in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi. As against this, Mr. Gopal Subramanium submitted that the order of the Special judge dated 27. 11. 2000 does not necessarily imply that the CBI was obliged to take approval of the Special Judge if presence of the petitioner was required after December, 2000. It was submitted by him that the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi for seeking further orders from him for securing the presence of the petitioner was applicable only during the time frame specified in condition no. (ii) and not thereafter. It is pointed out that at the given time in June 2001, the investigation was in progress and the accused was required for giving further handwriting specimen as the GEQD had indicated that there was discrepancy in his signatures and writing. In the opinion of this Court, the order of the learned Special Judge dated 27. 11. 2000 was unambiguous to the effect that the presence of the petitioner, if at all required after December, 2000, could only be secured with prior approval of the said court. The summoning of the petitioner at CBI office, therefore, on 7th and 11th June, 2001 was in complete derogation of stipulations contained in the said order of the Special Judge. Even the purpose for summoning the petitioner to CBI office that his presence was required for giving further handwriting specimen as the GEQD had indicated there was some discrepancy in his signature and writing, does not inspire confidence because even as back as in October, 2000 in the remand application dated 23. 10. 2000, CBI had itself projected before the Special Judge that most of the time was utilized by them for obtaining the specimen signatures. ( 27 ) IT is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not summoned by the investigating Officer any time between January to May, 2001 and was summoned only in the month of June, 2001. 10. 2000, CBI had itself projected before the Special Judge that most of the time was utilized by them for obtaining the specimen signatures. ( 27 ) IT is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not summoned by the investigating Officer any time between January to May, 2001 and was summoned only in the month of June, 2001. It does not appear to be just a matter of coincidence to the Court but the events which have taken place during the end of may, 2001 and beginning of June, 2001, would speak hoarse for itself as to why the petitioner was summoned on those dates. The events were that the brother of the petitioner had filed a criminal writ petition No. 600/2001 in which he (Ashok kumar Aggarwal) had sought direction to the District Judge or any independent agency under the supervision of this Court to hold inquiry into the conduct of the CBI and that of the Interpol, Singapore and Interpol, Delhi and for punishment of the guilty persons and award of compensation. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 28. 05. 2001 observing that the relief sought for in the petition could be sought from the court of Special Judge and, therefore, if the petitioner, if he was so advised, could approach the said court for the relief prayed in the said petition. Immediately after the passing of the said order, the petitioner Ashok kumar Aggarwal filed petitions, under Section 340 Cr. P. C. and another for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent before the Special Judge, delhi on 01. 06. 2001 seeking appropriate action against the respondents. Even before the said petitions could come up for hearing before the Court, it would appear that respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 6. 6. 2001 securing the presence of the petitioner in his office on 7. 6. 2001 and thereafter on 11. 6. 2001 respectively and the purpose given in the said notice was to produce the shareholders who have given their residential addresses as B-1/134, Paschim vihar, New Delhi. The said petitions came up for hearing before the Special judge on 8. 1. 2001, who by a speaking order issued notice to respondents on the application to show cause why complaint be not filed against them as prayed in the said petition. The said petitions came up for hearing before the Special judge on 8. 1. 2001, who by a speaking order issued notice to respondents on the application to show cause why complaint be not filed against them as prayed in the said petition. It would appear to the Court that the issuance of those notices by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner after a gap of more than five months and for the alleged purpose, was not an innocuous act on the part of investigating Officer but was with the oblique motive to secure the presence of the petitioner in order to coerce him to in turn pressurize his brother Ashok kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the said petitions filed by the later in the Court of special Judge. Therefore, it would appear to the Court that summoning of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 at that juncture was not only in complete disregard of the order of the Special Judge dated 27. 11. 2000 but was loaded with the motive, as aforesaid. ( 28 ) WHAT mode or methods an investigator would use to coerce a suspect to obtain the desired result will be known to him as the same would not form record of any case diaries. If this Court has reasons to believe that the summoning of the petitioner in the office of CBI was actuated with malafides, then there is every possibility of respondent No. 2 having used the utterances to the petitioner as referred to above for accomplishing the said object. Use of such vulgar, intimidating and coercive language by an investigating officer cannot be justified in any civilized society on the basis of any explanation. Though the enquiry officer of the CBI has not found substance in the said allegations, but having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, this Court cannot accept the said finding. The allegations made in the petition are serious enough and cannot be brushed aside lightly and if found true, they constitute certain criminal offences. The allegations made in the petition are serious enough and cannot be brushed aside lightly and if found true, they constitute certain criminal offences. ( 29 ) THIS Court is unable to appreciate the stand taken by the Delhi Police that as the allegations of the petitioner are against the CBI officers and relate to certain lapses/offences committed by the CBI officer during the course of investigation of a case, they have no power or jurisdiction to investigate the said offence (s) committed by the CBI officers during the course of investigation of their own case. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional solicitor General, in all fairness, submitted that the powers of investigation of Delhi Police viz-a-viz CBI officers are concurrent but according to him since no offence has been committed by any CBI officer, there is no question of registration of the FIR and investigation by the local police. This Court must recall the old age golden principle that ?howsoever High You May be, the Law is above You. ? That would necessarily mean that if an offence is committed by the highest of high, unless he enjoys the immunity from prosecution by Constitution or laws, he must be subjected to the due process of law. It would be preposterous to even assume that if an investigator or for that reason investigator of a specialized agency like CBI commits an offence, he can go scot-free and there will be no one in the country to book him for the crime which he might have committed during the course of investigation of a case. This Court has not been informed as to which other authority or functionary besides the Delhi Police in the present case, has the necessary jurisdiction to register and investigate a case against such CBI officer. The instances are not rare when the CBI officers have been prosecuted for the offences committed by them during the course of investigation or otherwise. Some recent incidents would highlight that the officers of CBI are also not free from corruption and several of them have been booked for various offences under the POC Act, either by the CBI itself or by an outside agency. Some recent incidents would highlight that the officers of CBI are also not free from corruption and several of them have been booked for various offences under the POC Act, either by the CBI itself or by an outside agency. Therefore, this Court must hold that the local police (Delhi Police in the case in hand) has the requisite power and jurisdiction to register and investigate a case even against the CBI officers, who are alleged to have committed certain criminal offences. ( 30 ) IN regard to the relief of initiation of contempt proceedings, mr. Gopal Subramanium has pointed out that once the petitioner has withdrawn his petition for initiating contempt Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8650/2004 against inspector Omwati, the then SHO, Lodhi Colony, then as a necessary corollary contempt proceedings would stand dropped against respondent No. 2 because the gravammen of the complaint in the petition to seek initiation of contempt was that the then SHO, Lodhi Colony in conspiracy with respondent No. 2 incorporated false facts in the status report to save him from legal action. This Court is unable to accept this contention because the said Criminal Misc. Petition was filed during the pendency of the present petition and was primarily based on the inconsistent/contradictory stands taken by Inspector Omwati in her status report, than the one later taken by the DCP (Headquarter) in his affidavit and additional affidavit. since in the reckoning of the petitioner, the additional affidavit clarified the issue. the petitioner was advised to withdraw the said petition. However, so far allegations against respondent No. 2 are concerned, they are not based on the filing of the said inconsistent status report but was referred to in the main petition itself about respondent No. 2 having committed contempt of the order of the Special Judge dated 27. 11. 2000 by summoning the petitioner in the CBI office on 7. 6. 2001 and 11. 6. 2001 in complete derogation of the stipulations of the said order of the Special Judge. Therefore, it is manifest that withdrawal of the contempt petition against Inspector Omwati would not automatically amount to the withdrawal of contempt proceedings against respondent No. 2 as well. ( 31 ) TOWARDS the fag end of the hearing on the petition, Mr. 6. 2001 in complete derogation of the stipulations of the said order of the Special Judge. Therefore, it is manifest that withdrawal of the contempt petition against Inspector Omwati would not automatically amount to the withdrawal of contempt proceedings against respondent No. 2 as well. ( 31 ) TOWARDS the fag end of the hearing on the petition, Mr. Ram jethmalani, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted to the court and indicated to the learned Additional Solicitor General that petitioner would perhaps be satisfied if having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Director, CBI could simply express his regret to the Court in regard to the conduct of its officers in the course of investigation of the case registered against the petitioner and others. Learned Additional Solicitor General, under instructions of the Director, CBI, however, stated that the Director, CBI on examination of the matter had declined the suggestions of Mr. Ram Jethmalani to express any regret in the matter. In view of this, there is no option except to answer the petition on its merits. ( 32 ) TO sum up, this Court must hold that the act of respondent No. 2 in summoning the petitioner to his office on 07. 06. 2001 and 11. 06. 2001 was not only in derogation of the order of the learned Special Judge dated 27. 11. 2000 but it prima facie smacks of a malicious move on his part. No guess work is needed to pinpoint the oblique motive behind this act of respondent No. 2 as I have already found that the summoning of accused person and misbehaving with him on the above dates was not a matter of co-incidence but was a fall out of the events which were taking place in the court of Special Judge during that period. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation in holding that prima facie the averments and allegations made by the petitioner are not unfounded. The allegations are grave in nature and amount to negation of the right of a citizen to live with dignity besides constituting certain penal offence (s ). Therefore, there is an imperative need that these allegations are thoroughly probed and the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. The allegations are grave in nature and amount to negation of the right of a citizen to live with dignity besides constituting certain penal offence (s ). Therefore, there is an imperative need that these allegations are thoroughly probed and the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. This is also essential and would perhaps be in the interest of a premier investigating agency of the country like CBI also to clear itself of from any such allegations, lest any persisting doubt persists in any body's mind for all times to come. This Court, therefore, considers it expedient in the interest of justice that a case is registered under the appropriate provisions of law and it would be appropriate if investigation is taken up by an agency other than CBI, conduct of its own officers being in question. ( 33 ) IN the result, the petition is partly allowed. The Special Cell of delhi Police is directed to register an FIR on the basis of the allegations contained in the present petition and the complaint of the petitioner dated 23. 2. 2004 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and take up the investigation of the case. The investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police in the said Cell independently and uninfluenced by the findings and observations contained in the report of enquiry dated 26. 4. 2005 conducted by the Joint Director, CBI and shall endeavour to conclude the investigation expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of this order and shall file a status report in the Court on 5th September, 2006. ( 34 ) SO far as relief for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 is required to be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges and, therefore, it is directed that so far as this relief is concerned, the matter may be listed before a Division Bench of this Court on 5th July, 2006 for directions. The petition and all pending applications stand disposed of to the above extent. .