Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Dissatisfaction With CBI Verification Cannot Become a Passport for Fresh FIR: Delhi HC Refuses Cross-Case Against Senior Officers
Background of the Case
In Jitendra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.P.(CRL) 2903/2023, decided on 22.09.2026, the Delhi High Court declined to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a cross-FIR or a fresh criminal case merely because the complainant was dissatisfied with the manner in which the CBI had verified his allegations. The Court held that when the complaints had already been examined by the competent investigating agency pursuant to the directions of the Central Vigilance Commission, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the CrPC could not be invoked merely to obtain a particular investigative outcome.
The petitioner, Jitendra Pratap Singh, was an officer of the Indian Revenue Service and was posted with the Enforcement Directorate at Ahmedabad. During 2015, he was associated with an investigation concerning cricket betting and related financial transactions. On 22.09.2015, the CBI registered a case against the petitioner and certain other persons regarding the manner in which that investigation had allegedly been conducted. A chargesheet was subsequently filed before the competent court at Ahmedabad for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and those criminal proceedings remained pending.
Complaints Against ED and CBI Officers
The petitioner subsequently submitted complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 before the CVC against, among others, the then Director of Enforcement, Shri Karnail Singh, and the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shri M.C.R. Mukund. According to the petitioner, the investigation conducted by him into cricket betting had resulted in arrests, attachment proceedings and prosecution complaints. He alleged that the investigation was thereafter interfered with and that the CBI case against him was the consequence of such interference.
The CVC, through its Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019, forwarded the complaints to the CBI for investigation and submission of a report. Alleging inaction upon those directions, the petitioner earlier approached the Delhi High Court in W.P.(CRL) 2440/2021. By an order dated 10.01.2022, the Court directed the CBI to expedite the enquiry.
The CBI thereafter examined the allegations, including the material relating to certain companies, financial transactions, alleged disproportionate assets, benami properties and shell companies. Shri Karnail Singh was examined during the verification, while the allegations concerning Shri M.C.R. Mukund were also scrutinised. A subsequent complaint dated 21.05.2022 was also considered. Ultimately, the CBI submitted its report dated 28.06.2023 to the CVC, stating that the verification had not revealed any actionable material against the persons complained against. The CVC accepted the report and closed the complaints.
Demand for a Cross-FIR
The petitioner contended that his complaints disclosed a distinct counter-version arising from the same transaction forming the subject matter of the CBI case registered against him. Relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, he argued that a genuine counter-version disclosing cognizable offences could be registered and investigated separately.
He further relied upon Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh to contend that where information discloses the commission of cognizable offences, registration of an FIR is mandatory. According to him, what the CBI described as a mere “verification” could not substitute a proper criminal investigation. He alleged that the verification was largely based upon publicly available records and was inadequate to examine matters such as off-record financial transactions, beneficial ownership, electronic evidence and interference with the original cricket-betting investigation.
The petitioner also highlighted the allegedly unequal approach adopted by the CBI. While the case against him had been registered without any preliminary enquiry, his complaints against senior officers were subjected to a prolonged verification process without registration of an FIR.
Mere Label of Cross-Version Does Not Create Right to Second FIR
The Delhi High Court held that merely describing a complaint as a cross-version does not automatically entitle the complainant to registration of a second FIR. The principles laid down in cases concerning cross-FIRs must be applied in the factual circumstances of each case.
In the present case, the petitioner’s complaints were not rejected at the threshold. They were forwarded by the CVC to the CBI, whereupon the agency undertook verification, examined the persons concerned, scrutinised the relevant material and submitted its report to the CVC. The CVC thereafter closed the complaints with the approval of the competent authority.
The Court found that the petitioner’s real grievance concerned the manner in which the verification was conducted and the conclusion reached by the CBI. Such dissatisfaction, without anything further, could not justify a judicial direction to register a fresh FIR.
High Court Cannot Substitute Its Assessment for That of CBI
The Court observed that examining whether the CBI had collected sufficient material or properly appreciated the evidence would require it to reassess the investigative exercise. While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily substitute its own assessment for that of the investigating agency unless there was clear illegality, arbitrariness or failure to exercise jurisdiction.
No such exceptional circumstance was demonstrated. The complaints had been considered pursuant to the CVC’s directions, verification had been conducted, a report had been submitted and the competent authority had decided to close the matter. Whether the conclusions recorded by the CBI were factually correct was not an issue that the High Court was required to decide in the writ proceedings.
The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner was already facing trial in the case registered against him. He remained free to raise all available grounds and defences before the competent criminal court. The pendency of those proceedings was a relevant consideration while examining the request to initiate another investigation arising from substantially the same factual background.
Extraordinary Jurisdiction Cannot Ensure a Preferred Investigative Result
The High Court ultimately held that its extraordinary criminal jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to secure a particular investigative result after the competent agency had already examined the complaints and taken a decision. Consequently, the Court refused to direct the CBI to register either a cross-FIR or a fresh case.
The petition was disposed of, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue any other remedy available before the competent forum. The Court clarified that its judgment would not be treated as expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the pending criminal proceedings or the evidence collected therein.
Author’s Comments
The judgment does not hold that a cross-FIR is legally impermissible. It recognises that a genuine counter-version may be separately investigated, but makes it clear that the expression “cross-version” is not a magic formula compelling registration of another FIR. Where the complaint has already undergone institutional scrutiny and the grievance is essentially against the conclusion reached, the complainant must establish something more—such as manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, suppression of material or a clear refusal to exercise jurisdiction. A writ court will not convert itself into a supervisory investigating agency merely because the complainant considers the verification inadequate.
Cases Discussed
- T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 — relied upon by the petitioner regarding investigation of a counter-version arising from the same occurrence.
- Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 714 — relied upon by the petitioner on counter-cases/counter-versions.
- Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 — relied upon by the petitioner to support separate investigation of a counter-version.
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 114 — relied upon by the petitioner for the submission that information disclosing cognizable offences requires appropriate action in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), has been filed by the petitioner, Jitendra Pratap Singh, seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) to register a cross-FIR in relation to RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi, dated 22.09.2015, in which the petitioner is an accused, or, in the alternative, to register a fresh case on the basis of complaints submitted by him before the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”). The petitioner also seeks investigation into the allegations made in the said complaints, which concern the circumstances surrounding the investigation being undertaken by him while posted with the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) at Ahmedabad and the subsequent registration of the aforesaid CBI case against him.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service and was, at the relevant time, posted with the ED at Ahmedabad. During 2015, he was associated with an investigation relating to cricket betting and allied financial transactions. On 22.09.2015, the CBI registered RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi against the petitioner and other persons in relation to allegations concerning the manner in which such investigation had been conducted. A chargesheet was subsequently filed before the competent court at Ahmedabad for offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PMLA’). The said proceedings are stated to be pending.
3. The petitioner thereafter submitted complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 before the CVC against, inter alia, Shri Karnal Singh, then Director, ED, and Shri M.C.R. Mukund, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI. The complaints related to the circumstances in which the investigation being conducted by the petitioner was allegedly interfered with and the subsequent action taken against him. The petitioner also submitted documentary and other material before the CVC in support of his complaints.
4. The CVC, vide Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019, directed the CBI to investigate the allegations contained in the aforesaid complaints and submit a report. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.2440/2021 complaining of non-compliance with the aforesaid direction. Vide order dated 10.01.2022, this Court directed the CBI to expedite the enquiry.
5. Pursuant thereto, the CBI undertook verification of the allegations and examined the material placed before it. The CBI states that Shri Karnal Singh was examined during the course of such verification and that records relating to certain companies, financial transactions and the allegations concerning Shri M.C.R. Mukund were also examined.
6. The CBI subsequently submitted its report dated 28.06.2023 to the CVC, recording that the verification in totality had not revealed actionable material against Shri Karnal Singh and Shri M.C.R. Mukund. The CVC thereafter closed the complaints and, vide communication dated 17.11.2023, informed the CBI that it would allow the matter to rest.
7. The petitioner disputes the manner and scope of the aforesaid verification and contends that the allegations made by him disclose a separate version arising out of the same transaction which is the subject matter of RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi. He therefore seeks registration of a cross-FIR, or, in the alternative, a fresh case, followed by an investigation into the allegations made by him.
8. The principal issue arising for consideration in the present petition is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction ought to be issued to the CBI for registration of a cross-FIR or a fresh case on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints and for investigation thereof.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONERS:
9. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) to register and investigate a cross-version arising out of the same transaction which forms the subject matter of RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi dated 22.09.2015. It is submitted that while the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner, the allegations made by him against Shri Karnal Singh and others have not been subjected to a corresponding criminal investigation.
10. The petitioner submits that the complaints made by him disclose cognizable offences and set out a specific counter-version concerning the circumstances in which the aforesaid CBI case came to be registered. Relying upon T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 714 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292, the petitioner submits that where a counter-version arising out of the same occurrence discloses cognizable offences, the same requires investigation.
11. The petitioner further submits that the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”), after considering his complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 and the material placed before it, recorded that the allegations were serious, specific and verifiable and, vide Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019, directed the CBI to investigate the same. Reliance is placed upon Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 114, in support of the submission that information disclosing cognizable offences requires appropriate action in accordance with law.
12. The petitioner submits that the material placed before the CVC discloses a sequence of events concerning the investigation being conducted by him while posted with the Enforcement Directorate at Ahmedabad and the subsequent proceedings initiated against him. It is submitted that the investigation in the cricket-betting matter had, during his tenure, resulted in arrests, attachment proceedings and prosecution complaints, and that the subsequent cessation of such activities constitutes a circumstance requiring investigation.
13. The petitioner further submits that his complaints contain specific allegations concerning communications received by him, meetings involving persons allegedly connected with the cricket-betting matter and the subsequent sequence of events culminating in registration of the CBI case against him. It is submitted that he had placed documentary and electronic material before the authorities which required verification through examination of the relevant official records and other material.
14. The petitioner submits that the nature of the exercise undertaken by the CBI pursuant to the CVC’s direction was insufficient to examine the allegations raised by him. It is contended that neither an FIR nor a Preliminary Enquiry was registered and that the CBI proceeded by way of what was described as “verification”. According to the petitioner, such an exercise, substantially based upon publicly available corporate and other records, could not effectively examine allegations concerning off-record financial transactions, beneficial ownership, electronic evidence and the alleged interference with the cricket-betting investigation.
15. The petitioner further submits that the manner in which his complaints were dealt with was materially different from the manner in which the complaint against him was acted upon. According to him, the case against him was registered on 22.09.2015 without a preliminary enquiry, whereas his complaints remained subject to a prolonged verification exercise, during which the person against whom the allegations were made was examined. It is submitted that such verification could not substitute a criminal investigation into the counter-version.
16. The petitioner submits that the pendency of the criminal proceedings arising from RC No.03(A)/2015 cannot obviate the necessity of investigating the allegations raised by him. It is contended that the material and evidence relating to the alleged role of Shri Karnal Singh and the other persons named in his complaints do not form part of the chargesheet in the pending case and, therefore, cannot be left to be considered in those proceedings.
17. The petitioner accordingly submits that the CBI’s verification cannot be treated as a substitute for registration and investigation of his counter-version, particularly when the CVC had directed an investigation vide Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019 and this Court had subsequently directed the CBI to expedite the enquiry. He accordingly prays that the CBI be directed to register a cross-FIR or, in the alternative, a fresh case on the basis of his complaints and conduct a fair investigation in accordance with law.
SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
18. None appeared on behalf of the respondents on the date of hearing. The submissions on behalf of respondent No.3/CBI and respondent No.2/CVC, therefore, have been considered on the basis of their respective written submissions placed on record.
19. In its written submissions, respondent No.3/CBI states that the present petition seeks a direction for registration of a cross-FIR in relation to RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi dated 22.09.2015 and, in the alternative, registration of a fresh case against Shri Karnail Singh, IPS (Retd.) and Shri M.C.R. Mukund, then Dy. SP, CBI. The CBI submits that the petitioner himself is an accused in the aforesaid case and that the case was registered on the basis of a complaint concerning his conduct while he was posted with the Enforcement Directorate. It is stated that the CBI has since filed a chargesheet before the competent court at Ahmedabad and the proceedings are pending.
20. The CBI further submits that the complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 made by the petitioner before the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”) were forwarded to the CBI vide Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019. Pursuant thereto, the CBI registered the matter as Complaint CO-26/2019 on 21.05.2019 and undertook verification of the allegations. It is stated that the petitioner had also furnished material before the CVC, which formed part of the material considered during such verification.
21. It is further stated that, during the course of verification, Shri Karnail Singh was examined on 26.02.2020 and 09.03.2020. The CBI also states that records relating to companies allegedly connected with him were obtained and examined and that verification was undertaken in respect of the allegations concerning disproportionate assets, benami properties and shell companies. The allegations concerning Shri M.C.R. Mukund were also examined and the relevant records were scrutinised.
22. According to the CBI, the verification did not reveal any actionable material or wrongful conduct on the part of Shri Karnail Singh or Shri M.C.R. Mukund. The CBI submitted its report dated 28.06.2023 to the CVC recording the aforesaid conclusion. It is stated that the CVC thereafter closed the complaints and was informed accordingly.
23. The CBI further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.2440/2021 alleging that no action had been taken upon his complaints. According to the CBI, a status report was filed in those proceedings informing the Court that an enquiry pursuant to the CVC’s directions had already been initiated and was in progress. The said proceedings were thereafter disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2022.
24. The CBI submits that a further complaint dated 21.05.2022 addressed to the Director, CBI was also considered as part of the verification exercise. Upon an overall consideration of the material, the CBI states that no wrongful act or conduct was found on the part of the persons complained against and the result of the verification was communicated to the CVC vide letter dated 27.06.2023.
25. It is further submitted that merely describing a complaint as a “cross-FIR” does not confer a right to registration of a second FIR. According to the CBI, the allegations made by the petitioner had already been examined by the investigating agency and no actionable material was found. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek a fresh investigation into the same allegations merely because he is dissatisfied with the conclusion reached during verification.
26. The CBI further submits that the petitioner is already facing proceedings arising out of RC No.03(A)/2015 and that allegations concerning the manner in which the said case was investigated and the role attributed to the persons named by him have already been raised by him before the competent trial court. It is, therefore, contended that no separate investigation is warranted on the basis of the same allegations.
27. In its written submissions, respondent No.2/CVC submits that the petitioner had submitted complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 before the Commission and that, pursuant to its Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019, the CBI undertook verification and submitted its report dated 28.06.2023. The report recorded that the verification in totality had not revealed actionable material against Shri Karnail Singh and Shri M.C.R. Mukund.
28. The CVC further submits that, upon receipt of the aforesaid report, the complaints were closed with the approval of the competent authority. It is stated that the CVC subsequently informed the CBI, vide Office Memorandum dated 17.11.2023, that it would allow the matter to rest.
FINDINGS AND ANLYSIS:
29. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by parties and have perused the material on record.
30. The relief sought in the present petition is for issuance of a direction to the CBI to register a cross-FIR in relation to RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi or, in the alternative, to register a fresh case on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner. The prayer is, therefore, required to be examined in the context of the limited and extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC.
31. The record shows that the petitioner had submitted complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 before the CVC. Pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019 issued by the CVC, the CBI undertook verification of the allegations. During the course of such verification, the CBI examined Shri Karnail Singh, scrutinised material relating to the allegations concerning his assets and associated entities, and also examined the allegations concerning Shri M.C.R. Mukund. The petitioner thereafter submitted a further complaint dated 21.05.2022, which was also taken into consideration.
32. Upon completion of the aforesaid exercise, the CBI submitted its report dated 28.06.2023 to the CVC, recording that the verification had not disclosed actionable material against the persons complained against. The CVC thereafter closed the complaints with the approval of the competent authority and informed the CBI vide Office Memorandum dated 17.11.2023 that the matter would rest there.
33. The petitioner disputes the adequacy of the aforesaid verification and submits that the allegations contained in his complaints disclose a counter-version of the same occurrence and, therefore, ought to have resulted in registration of a separate FIR and a full-fledged investigation. However, the mere assertion that a complaint constitutes a counter-version does not, by itself, entitle the complainant to a direction from this Court for registration of a second FIR. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner concerning counter-cases have to be applied in the factual context of each case.
34. In the present case, the petitioner’s complaints were not rejected at the threshold. They were forwarded by the CVC to the CBI for consideration pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019. The CBI thereafter undertook the verification and furnished its report to the CVC. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with the manner in which the material was examined and the conclusion reached by the investigating agency. Such a grievance, without more, cannot result in a direction to register a fresh FIR in exercise of the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of this Court.
35. The earlier proceedings in W.P.(Crl.) No.2440/2021 are also relevant. The petitioner had approached this Court alleging non-compliance with the CVC’s directions. The CBI had placed on record that an enquiry had already been initiated, and this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022, disposed of the petition after taking note of the said position. Thus, the present petition cannot be considered without taking into account the subsequent action admittedly undertaken pursuant to the very directions which formed the subject matter of the earlier proceedings.
36. The petitioner is also admittedly facing criminal proceedings arising out of RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi. The CBI states that chargesheet has been filed and the proceedings are pending before the competent court at Ahmedabad. The petitioner has contended that his allegations against the persons named in the present petition cannot be adjudicated in those proceedings. Be that as it may, the petitioner would be entitled to raise all grounds and defences available to him before the competent court in accordance with law. The existence of such pending proceedings is a relevant circumstance while considering a prayer for initiation of another criminal investigation arising from the same factual background.
37. The contention that the verification undertaken by the CBI was inadequate, that relevant material was not collected or that the allegations were not properly examined essentially involves an assessment of the investigative exercise and the material considered by the agency. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, would not ordinarily undertake such an exercise or substitute its own assessment for that of the investigating agency unless the record discloses a clear illegality, arbitrariness or failure to exercise jurisdiction warranting interference.
38. No such circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case. The material on record shows that the petitioner’s complaints were considered pursuant to the CVC’s direction, the CBI undertook the verification, its report was submitted to the CVC and the complaints were thereafter closed. Whether the conclusions arrived at by the CBI are correct on facts is not a matter which this Court is required to determine in the present proceedings.
39. The petitioner has other remedies available in law in respect of any grievance concerning the manner in which his complaints were dealt with or the conclusions reached thereon. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked merely to secure a particular investigative outcome when the competent agency has already undertaken an exercise pursuant to the competent authority’s directions and has taken a decision on the material before it.
40. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to issue a direction to the CBI for registration of a cross-FIR or a fresh case on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints. No case is made out for exercise of the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC.
CONCLUSION:
41. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
42. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law before the competent forum.
43. Nothing contained in the present judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner, the pending criminal proceedings, or the material collected therein.
