A Delhi court has overturned a magistrate's order to register a First Information Report (FIR) against three CBI officers accused of custodial torture, ruling that the complainant engaged in "forum shopping" by filing a new case with the same allegations after a previous judicial inquiry had already concluded. The Sessions Court found that the complainant, Manoj Kumar, had failed to challenge a prior order from August 18, 2023, where the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had accepted the CBI's inquiry into Kumar's allegations of assault during his arrest in April 2023 for alleged illegal trade of an elephant ivory tusk. Although the CBI's internal inquiry acknowledged procedural lapses, it concluded the injuries were sustained during an attempted escape, and the magistrate at that time deemed no further action was required. The Sessions Court emphasized that directing an FIR on an issue already examined and closed by a competent court was legally impermissible and constituted an abuse of legal process, thereby setting aside the order for FIR registration and quashing all related proceedings.

A Delhi court has overturned a magistrate's order to register a First Information Report (FIR) against three CBI officers accused of custodial torture, ruling that the complainant engaged in "forum shopping" by filing a new case with the same allegations after a previous judicial inquiry had already concluded. The Sessions Court found that the complainant, Manoj Kumar, had failed to challenge a prior order from August 18, 2023, where the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had accepted the CBI's inquiry into Kumar's allegations of assault during his arrest in April 2023 for alleged illegal trade of an elephant ivory tusk. Although the CBI's internal inquiry acknowledged procedural lapses, it concluded the injuries were sustained during an attempted escape, and the magistrate at that time deemed no further action was required. The Sessions Court emphasized that directing an FIR on an issue already examined and closed by a competent court was legally impermissible and constituted an abuse of legal process, thereby setting aside the order for FIR registration and quashing all related proceedings.

A Delhi court has overturned a magistrate's order to register a First Information Report (FIR) against three CBI officers accused of custodial torture, ruling that the complainant engaged in "forum shopping" by filing a new case with the same allegations after a previous judicial inquiry had already concluded. The Sessions Court found that the complainant, Manoj Kumar, had failed to challenge a prior order from August 18, 2023, where the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had accepted the CBI's inquiry into Kumar's allegations of assault during his arrest in April 2023 for alleged illegal trade of an elephant ivory tusk. Although the CBI's internal inquiry acknowledged procedural lapses, it concluded the injuries were sustained during an attempted escape, and the magistrate at that time deemed no further action was required. The Sessions Court emphasized that directing an FIR on an issue already examined and closed by a competent court was legally impermissible and constituted an abuse of legal process, thereby setting aside the order for FIR registration and quashing all related proceedings.

A Delhi court has set aside an order directing registration of an FIR against three Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers accused of custodial torture, holding that the complainant had engaged in forum shopping after failing to challenge an earlier order that had already dealt with the allegations.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, allowed a revision petition filed by the CBI and its officers and quashed the October 8, 2025 order of a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) directing registration of an FIR against Inspector Yogesh Kumar, Inspector Vishal and retired Deputy Superintendent of Police Ashish Sharma.

The dispute arose from the arrest of Haryana resident Manoj Kumar in April 2023 in a CBI case involving alleged illegal trade of an elephant ivory tusk. Kumar later alleged that he was assaulted while in CBI custody and moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking registration of an FIR against the officers concerned.

The trial court had accepted the plea, observing that the difference between an initial medical examination showing no injuries and subsequent medical reports recording multiple injuries painted a horrifying picture of custodial violence. It directed Delhi Police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.

However, the Sessions Court found that the trial court had ignored crucial developments that had already taken place before the Rouse Avenue Courts shortly after Kumar's arrest.

The order records that when Kumar was produced before the then ACMM at Rouse Avenue Courts on May 1, 2023, he complained of custodial assault. The court ordered fresh medical examinations and subsequently the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed senior CBI officers to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.

Following the inquiry, the CBI submitted reports stating that the injuries were sustained during a scuffle when Kumar allegedly attempted to flee during the trap operation, though it acknowledged procedural lapses in not conducting an immediate medical examination. Show-cause notices and warnings were issued to the officers concerned.

On August 18, 2023, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the inquiry outcome and observed that "no further directions are required from this court", while directing the agency to take additional precautions in future and strictly follow guidelines relating to custody and medical examination of accused persons.

Judge Jaggi noted that Kumar never challenged that order, which had consequently attained finality.

"Having failed to file a revision or appeal against the 18.08.2023 order of the Ld. CMM, RADC, the respondent subsequently approached the Ld. JMFC at Saket Courts under Section 156(3) CrPC with the exact same set of facts and allegations. This constitutes a textbook example of forum shopping and an egregious abuse of the process of law," the court held.

The court further criticised the magistrate for relying on the initial observations made by the Rouse Avenue court while ignoring the final order that concluded the inquiry proceedings.

According to the judgment, by directing registration of an FIR on an issue that had already been examined and closed by a competent court, the magistrate effectively acted as an appellate authority over the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was legally impermissible.

The Sessions Court also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra to underline that magistrates must exercise caution before directing criminal investigations against public servants and cannot act mechanically while exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Holding that the impugned order suffered from patent illegality, infirmity, perversity and jurisdictional error, Judge Jaggi allowed the revision petition, set aside the order directing registration of the FIR and quashed all consequential proceedings. The court added that Kumar could not be permitted to indulge in forum shopping and abuse the process of the criminal justice system to harass the investigating officers.