# Delhi High Court Directs Criminal Case Against Six CBI Officials Over False Court Submissions

> The Delhi High Court has ordered criminal action against six CBI officers for concealing facts and submitting misleading replies in a matter involving a former IRS officer.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Delhi · **Published:** 2026-10-07 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/adalata-men-galata-halaphanama-pesha-karane-para-cbi-ke-chhaha-aphasaron-ke-khilapha-prathamiki-darja-karane-ka-nirdesha-44363 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** CBI, Delhi High Court, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Rouse Avenue Court, Ministry of Law, IPC

A bench of the Delhi High Court headed by Justice Madhu Jain has ordered the registration of a criminal complaint against six officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation for presenting false information before the judiciary. The direction came upon hearing a petition moved by former Indian Revenue Service officer Ashok Kumar Agarwal. Setting aside an earlier order of the special court at Rouse Avenue, the high court noted that the agency officials had deliberately presented factually incorrect assertions during court proceedings.

## Disproportionate Assets Case and Subsequent Acquittal
The controversy stems from a disproportionate assets inquiry originally initiated by the investigative agency against Ashok Kumar Agarwal. That prosecution suffered a major setback on January 13, 2016, when the Delhi High Court declared the underlying prosecution sanction order invalid. Acting on that ruling, the trial court formally acquitted Agarwal of all charges on March 10, 2016.

Following his clean acquittal, Agarwal approached the court seeking the return of his seized documents and personal records. In response to this restitution plea, the investigative agency submitted a formal reply on August 2, 2016, contending that consultations with the Ministry of Law and Justice and the administrative ministry regarding further legal remedies were still underway.

## Deliberate Concealment of Legal Advice and File Tampering
During the scrutiny of the case record, it emerged that the Ministry of Law and Justice had already tendered its formal opinion on June 8, 2016, concluding that there were no tenable grounds to challenge the matter before the Supreme Court. Consequently, no inter-ministerial deliberations were pending, and only internal discussions were taking place within the investigative bureau.

The high court observed that Vineet Vinayak, who was serving as joint director at the time, manually removed the reference to the law ministry's negative advice from the file. In its place, a misleading representation was entered claiming ongoing inter-departmental talks. This fabricated claim formed the basis of the misleading reply filed before the court on August 2, 2016, consciously withholding the fact that legal clearance to approach the apex court had already been turned down.

## Overturning the Special Court Order Under CrPC Section 340
Aggrieved by the deceptive affidavit, Agarwal moved an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking penal proceedings against the responsible personnel for giving false evidence. The special judge at the Rouse Avenue Court rejected his application on October 25, 2025, prompting Agarwal to file an appeal before the high court.

The high court set aside the special court's refusal to proceed and ordered that a formal written complaint be lodged against the six officers under Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for fabricating false evidence and making dishonest claims before a court of justice.

## Officials Named in the Judicial Directive
The directive targets six specific officials who handled the proceedings in various capacities at the relevant time

- **Vineet Vinayak:** Then Joint Director
- **Amit Kumar:** Then Head of Branch
- **Sushil Dewan:** Then Sub-Inspector
- **Raman Tyagi:** Then Superintendent of Police
- **Prem Kumar Gautam:** Then Superintendent of Police
- **Mohammad Azad:** Then Special Public Prosecutor

## What this means for you
This judgment reinforces that premier investigative agencies cannot escape criminal liability when misleading the judiciary.

- **Accountability in Prosecution:** Investigating officers face direct criminal prosecution for submitting deceptive statements and fabricated replies before judges. This creates a strong deterrent against misrepresenting facts during trials.
- **Protection for Acquitted Citizens:** Agencies can no longer delay the release of seized documents by falsely claiming ongoing appeals. Individuals wrongfully targeted have a validated legal route under Section 340 of the CrPC to hold officials responsible.
- **Integrity of Judicial Submissions:** Concealing formal advice from government ministries is now treated as an actionable offense under perjury statutes. This safeguards the sanctity of affidavits submitted by public agencies.
- **Internal Administrative Oversight:** Tampering with agency case diaries and records now invites personal criminal charges against senior officers. Supervisory authorities will need to exercise stricter scrutiny over the accuracy of court filings.

## Why this happened
The judicial directive followed verified evidence showing that agency officials deliberately concealed formal legal advice and altered internal case records to misinform the court.

- **Invalidation of Sanction:** The high court invalidated the prosecution sanction on January 13, 2016, paving the way for the trial court to acquit Ashok Kumar Agarwal on March 10, 2016.
- **Definitive Opinion from Law Ministry:** On June 8, 2016, the Ministry of Law and Justice concluded that there were no valid grounds to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
- **Concealment in Agency Records:** Despite the ministry's refusal, the then joint director removed the reference from the file and falsely recorded that consultations were ongoing, leading to a misleading reply on August 2, 2016.
- **Overruling Lower Court Inaction:** After the special court rejected the application on October 25, 2025, the matter reached the high court, which found clear evidence of perjury and ordered criminal complaints.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Against whom has the Delhi High Court ordered criminal proceedings?
The high court ordered criminal complaints against six CBI officials for submitting false replies before the court.

### 2. Which officer's petition prompted this court order?
The ruling came on an appeal filed by former Indian Revenue Service officer Ashok Kumar Agarwal, who was previously acquitted in an assets case.

### 3. What false claim was submitted by the investigative officers?
They claimed inter-ministerial talks were ongoing regarding an appeal, concealing the fact that the Law Ministry had already declined clearance.

### 4. Under which statutory provisions will the officials be prosecuted?
The court directed prosecution under Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for fabricating false evidence and dishonest claims.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._