Court seeks to know if compromise is possible, complainant gives some suggestions in CBI Joint Director raid case

New Delhi [India], April 27 : Delhi's Tis Hazari Court on Monday adjourned the arguements on sentence to be awarded to CBI Joint Director Ramneesh and Retired ACP after the convicts proposed a compromise.

The complainant, former IRS Ashok Agarwal, has given some conditions for compromise, including unconditional apology and compensation.

On April 18, the Tis Hazari court had convicted the Joint Director of CBI and a retired Assistant Commissioner of Delhi police in a case of assault, criminal trespass and Mischief. This case pertains to the offence committed in the year 2000.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Shashank Nandan Bhatt listed the matter for arguements on sentence on Tuesday.

A complaint was filed by former IRS office Ashok Kumar Agarwal against the then Deputy Superintendent of CBI Ramneesh and other officer V K Pandey.

Ramneesh is a 1994 batch IPS officer of the Gujarat Cadre.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Shashank Nandan Bhatt had convicted Ramneesh, joint director of CBI and Retired Assistant Commissioner V K Pandey in a case of predawn raid on former IRS officer's Ashok Kumar Agarwal in the year 2000.

The court held that the Arrest of Agarwal was engineered to nullify the CAT Order.

The court had Convicted Ramneesh, currently serving as Joint Director, CBI (who at the relevant time in 2000 was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police ( CBI), and V.K. Pandey, retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Inspector, in CBI at the relevant time) for offence of Assault, criminal trespass and Mischief under Sections 323, 427, 448, 34 IPC.

The complainant Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, a 1985 Batch IRS Officer, who at the relevant time was serving as Deputy Director of Enforcement, Delhi Zone. He was eventually discharged in both CBI cases against him.

While convicting the Accused persons the court held that the entire search and arrest proceedings of 19.10.2000 were conducted malafidely, with the sole objective of nullifying a CAT order dated 28.09.2000, which had directed review of the complainant's deemed suspension within four weeks.

The court had also held that the accused persons acted in sheer violation of the powers bestowed upon them by law. Their actions do not fall within the scope of 'discharge of official duty', and therefore, they are not entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.

The court noted that the accused broke open the main sliding door of the complainant's house, constituting mischief and criminal trespass, a fact confirmed even by the accused's own search list filed before the Delhi High Court.

The complainant suffered an injury on his right hand during the raid established through eyewitness testimony, the complainant's MLC, and crucially, admitted in the counter affidavit of accused VK Pandey himself before the Delhi High Court.

The court also noted that Instead of sending the required reply to the Income Tax Vigilance Directorate by 18.10.2000 as directed by CAT, the CBI officer conducted a secret meeting on the evening of 18.10.2000 and decided to raid and arrest the complainant the very next morning.

Advocate Shubham Asri, counsel for the complainant, had argued that while investigating sensitive FERA cases involving influential persons, faced sustained pressure from his superiors. He made seven representations to the Revenue Secretary between 1998 and 1999 regarding interference in his investigations.

In alleged retaliation, one Abhishek Verma, whom the complainant was investigating, filed a complaint against him in connivance with CBI officials, leading to registration of FIR against the complainant, the counsel argued.

It was alleged that on October 19, 2000 at about 5:00 am, a team of CBI officers reached the complainant's residence. The security guard was beaten when he sought identity proof. The team jumped the boundary wall, broke open the main sliding door, locked family members in a room, and dragged the complainant out of his bedroom in his undergarments.

It was also alleged that the complainant was manhandled and pushed on the stairs, causing injuries to his right arm. He was taken to an unknown location near Peeragarhi Chowk before being produced at DDU Hospital at 8:45 am. He was threatened with arrest of family members if he raised the issue before the CBI court.

While convicting the Accused persons, the court rejected the defence contentions as riddled with contradictions, the accused's own search list (filed before the Delhi High Court) confirmed the main door was broken, while defence witnesses at trial claimed only a latch was dislocated.

The court rejected the argument that the MLC was not proved, noting it was admitted by accused VK Pandey himself and formed part of his own affidavit before the Delhi High Court, which itself noted minor injuries on the complainant's body.

On the delay aspect it was noted that the one-year delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the fact that the accused were powerful CBI officers who had threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor