The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against six Central Bureau of Investigation officials over allegations that a statement submitted to a court about government correspondence did not accurately reflect the position at the time. The order was passed by Justice Madhu Jain in a petition filed by former Indian Revenue Service officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. The court found a reasonable foundation in the allegations and directed the Special Judge handling the CBI matter to prepare a written complaint against the six officials. The officers named in the order are Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad. The complaint has been directed to be sent to the jurisdictional magistrate within four weeks. The court's direction concerns alleged offences under Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

How the Dispute Began

The matter goes back to a CBI investigation involving Aggarwal, a former IRS officer. The agency had prosecuted him over allegations that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In January 2016, the Delhi High Court discharged Aggarwal after finding that the sanction required for his prosecution was invalid. The CBI subsequently considered challenging that decision before the Supreme Court. However, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice later took the view that there appeared to be no reasonable ground to pursue the matter before a higher forum. The opinion was communicated to the CBI through the Department of Personnel and Training.

The Statement That Became the Centre of the Case

The key issue before the High Court was a CBI reply dated August 2, 2016. In that response, the agency stated that correspondence with the administrative ministry regarding possible further legal action was underway. The CBI also argued that some documents should be retained because they could potentially be required in future legal proceedings.

Aggarwal disputed that version.

He argued that the relevant government position had already been communicated and that there was no ongoing correspondence of the nature described in the CBI's reply. He subsequently sought criminal proceedings against the officials involved in preparing and approving the response, alleging that the statement placed before the court was factually incorrect.

Court Examines Earlier Drafts and File Notings

A significant part of the High Court's reasoning came from the contemporaneous records surrounding the preparation of the CBI response. The court examined successive drafts, file notings and the final reply submitted before the trial court. According to the material considered by the High Court, an earlier version of the draft reflected the position that the Department of Personnel and Training had rejected the proposal to challenge Aggarwal's discharge before the Supreme Court.

That wording was later changed.

A subsequent version contained language suggesting that correspondence with the ministry regarding further legal action was still underway. The High Court found that the difference between the drafts was important because it concerned the actual status of government communication at that time.

Why the Court Found a Reasonable Foundation

Justice Madhu Jain held that the available records provided a reasonable basis to examine the allegations through criminal proceedings. The court did not treat the issue as merely an inaccurate choice of words. Instead, it considered the sequence of drafting, alteration, vetting, approval and filing of the response. The High Court said these circumstances provided a prima facie basis to examine whether the concerned officials had participated in presenting a claim that was inconsistent with the position reflected in the records. The court also found that a separate preliminary inquiry was not necessary before directing the complaint because the relevant drafts and file records had already been examined.

Read Also: Bhagwant Mann Says CBI Returned Empty-Handed After Punjab Search

What Sections 191, 193 and 209 Mean

The High Court referred to Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code in directing the complaint. Section 191 concerns giving false evidence. Section 193 deals with punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence. Section 209 relates to making a false claim in court fraudulently or dishonestly. The court's direction means that allegations involving these provisions must now be placed before the competent magistrate for consideration in accordance with law. The important distinction is that citing these provisions and directing a complaint does not itself establish criminal liability. The prosecution still has to establish the relevant ingredients of the alleged offences.

Earlier Trial Court Order Was Challenged

The development follows a long procedural history. Aggarwal had initially sought initiation of criminal proceedings in 2016 after questioning the CBI's statement. A trial court subsequently allowed the application concerning release of documents, but the request to initiate criminal proceedings was not accepted. On October 25, 2025, the Special Judge declined to initiate the requested proceedings. Aggarwal then approached the Delhi High Court challenging that decision. The CBI defended the trial court's position and argued before the High Court that the Special Judge was justified in refusing to initiate criminal proceedings. The High Court has now set aside that earlier position and directed the complaint process to move forward.