A counter-version does not automatically warrant a second FIR absent clear illegality in prior verification.

The petitioner, an Indian Revenue Service officer formerly posted with the Directorate of Enforcement at Ahmedabad, was accused in CBI RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III, registered on 22.09.2015 concerning alleged irregularities in an investigation into cricket betting and allied financial transactions; a chargesheet was subsequently filed and proceedings remained pending before the competent court at Ahmedabad

The petitioner later submitted complaints dated 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 before the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) against, inter alia, the then Director of Enforcement, Shri Karnail Singh, and CBI officer Shri M.C.R. Mukund, alleging interference with his investigation and wrongful implication in the CBI case

Pursuant to the CVC’s Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2019, the CBI undertook verification, examined Shri Karnail Singh, scrutinised relevant records and considered a further complaint dated 21.05.2022

The CBI reported on 28.06.2023 that the verification disclosed no actionable material, following which the CVC closed the complaints and informed the CBI on 17.11.2023 that the matter would rest

The petitioner challenged the adequacy of the verification and sought a direction for registration of a cross-FIR or, alternatively, a fresh case and investigation

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC for registration of a cross-FIR arising out of the same factual transaction as CBI RC No.03(A)/2015/CBI/AC-III.

Whether the CBI’s verification of the petitioner’s complaints, followed by submission of a report and closure by the CVC, warranted judicial interference and a direction for a fresh criminal investigation.

The Court applied the limited and extraordinary nature of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, under which a fresh FIR or investigation is not ordinarily directed merely because a complainant disputes the adequacy or outcome of an investigative exercise.

The Court considered the principles relied upon by the petitioner from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala , Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash concerning investigation of a genuine counter-version arising from the same occurrence, as well as Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding action on information disclosing cognizable offences.

However, the Court held that describing a complaint as a “cross-FIR” does not, by itself, create an entitlement to registration of a second FIR; the facts and the prior investigative action must be examined in context.

Judicial interference requires a demonstrated illegality, arbitrariness or failure to exercise jurisdiction, and the High Court cannot ordinarily substitute its assessment for that of the investigating agency.

The Court found that the petitioner’s complaints had not been ignored or rejected at the threshold. They had been forwarded by the CVC to the CBI, which conducted verification, examined the principal person complained against, scrutinised records concerning assets and associated entities, considered allegations against the CBI officer, and submitted a report to the CVC.

The petitioner’s grievance was essentially that the exercise should have taken the form of an FIR or a fuller investigation and that relevant material had not been properly examined. Such a challenge concerned the adequacy and factual correctness of the investigative conclusions, rather than a demonstrated jurisdictional defect or illegality warranting intervention under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court also treated the pending proceedings arising from the original CBI case and the earlier writ proceedings concerning compliance with the CVC’s direction as relevant circumstances against initiating another investigation on the same factual background.

No clear arbitrariness, illegality or failure to exercise jurisdiction was established.

The writ petition and pending application were disposed of; the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any other remedies available in law before the competent forum.

The Court clarified that the judgment expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations, the pending criminal proceedings or the material collected therein.