The Delhi High Court has kept in abeyance its order directing registration of a criminal complaint against six former CBI officers for making a false statement before the court regarding correspondence with the administrative Ministry, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

Justice Mini Pushkarna posted the matter in February and said that the directions contained in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the judgment passed on October 6 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing, LiveLaw reported. The October order was passed by a coordinate bench; the matter was listed before Justice Pushkarna due to a change in the roster.

Source: LiveLaw

The Court said a prima facie case was established by the applicants — retired CBI Deputy Superintendents Sushil Dewan and Raman Tyagi — who sought recall of the ruling, and that the balance of convenience was in their favour and irreparable injury would be caused to them if the interim order was not passed, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

The applicants, supported by the CBI, argued that the judgment was passed without hearing them: only Dewan was a party to the appeal and he claimed he was served on a wrong email address, while the other five accused officers were never issued notice, Bar and Bench reported.

Source: Bar and Bench

What the October 6 order had directed

The coordinate bench was hearing an appeal by IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal against a Special Judge's order declining to proceed under Section 340 of the CrPC over the alleged false statement in the CBI's reply. It directed the Special Judge to make a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad, to be transmitted within four weeks and placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

The 2016 reply at the centre of the case

The case arose from the CBI's investigation of Aggarwal for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income; in January 2016 the High Court held the sanction for his prosecution invalid and he was discharged, Bar and Bench reported. The Ministry of Law and Justice opined in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to pursue the matter further, and the Department of Personnel and Training communicated that opinion to the CBI in July 2016.

Source: Bar and Bench

When Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation, the CBI stated in its August 2, 2016 reply that correspondence with the Ministry regarding further legal action was 'under way'. The High Court found that no such correspondence was taking place and that the CBI was internally considering whether to seek reconsideration; it examined successive drafts of the reply and found an earlier draft recording that the DoPT had rejected the proposal to file a Supreme Court appeal had been deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence was underway, Bar and Bench reported.

Source: Bar and Bench

The October bench held the alteration was not merely an 'imprecise choice of words' and found a reasonable foundation for the allegation that a false statement had been placed before the court, Bar and Bench reported. The abeyance order does not decide the recall applications finally; the complaint direction stays paused till the February hearing, and the allegations against the officers — like the October direction itself — remain allegations and a procedural direction, not findings of guilt.

Source: Bar and Bench