The Delhi Crime Branch registered two FIRs (number 281 and number 282) on October 1 (Wednesday), against former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) senior officials Vinod Kumar Pandey (the then inspector of CBI) and Neeraj Kumar (the then Joint Director of CBI) following a Supreme Court (SC) order in September 2025. The top court reinstated and directed investigation into complaints dating back to 1999–2001, involving alleged evidence tampering, abuse of authority, and intimidation during CBI probes connected to businessman Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and his associates.
The SC’s intervention came after it dismissed four appeals filed by the accused challenging earlier Delhi High Court orders from 2006 that called for FIR registration and criminal contempt proceedings. The Court described it as a “travesty of justice” that serious allegations had remained uninvestigated for more than two decades.
FIR number 281: Forgery and fabrication of documents
Filed by Sheesh Ram Saini, an accountant for Vijay Aggarwal, FIR number 281 alleges that during a raid on their Naraina office in 1999–2000, Pandey and others seized company records without legal documentation. It claims the officers later forged seizure memos, altered dates, and falsified official records, compelling Saini to sign fraudulent papers under duress.
Charges under IPC sections 166, 218, 463, 465, 469, and 120B have been invoked, covering misuse of public office, falsification of records, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
FIR number 282: Threats, abuse, and wrongful confinement
FIR number 282, filed by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, concerns a 2001 incident in which Neeraj Kumar and Vinod Pandey allegedly threatened, abused, and intimidated him at the CBI office, pressuring him to ensure his brother withdrew a legal case against them.
Aggarwal claims he was wrongfully confined and subjected to coercion. His attempt to lodge a complaint at Lodhi Colony Police Station was reportedly refused, forcing him to approach the Delhi High Court. The FIR lists offences under IPC sections 166, 341, 342, and 506, relating to misuse of authority, wrongful restraint and confinement, and criminal intimidation.
Supreme Court orders independent investigation
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s directive for criminal contempt proceedings and ordered the investigation to be carried out by a Delhi Police ACP-rank officer. The officer will have the authority to arrest the accused if custodial interrogation is deemed necessary.
The SC observed that the alleged abuse, coercion, and vulgar language used to force Vijay Aggarwal into securing withdrawal of his brother’s complaint demonstrated grave professional misconduct with prima facie evidence of cognizable offences.
Current investigation status
The Delhi Crime Branch has now taken over both cases for formal investigation. The accused have been directed to join the probe and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. If they do so regularly, the Court has barred coercive steps, including arrest, unless custodial questioning becomes essential at any stage.
These proceedings mark the reopening of one of Delhi’s most contentious and long-delayed cases of alleged corruption and abuse of power within the country’s premier investigative agency.
About The Author
Comment List