CBI Investigation Should Not Be Ordered on Vague Allegations’: Supreme Court Quashes High Court Directive, Says Probe Transfers Can’t Be Done as a Matter of Routine
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has set aside a High Court order that had transferred an extortion investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court held that “CBI investigation should not be directed in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations,” and found that the conditions warranting such a transfer were not met in the present case. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's directive dated 17.05.2024, and directed that the investigation into the FIR registered at P.S. Sector 20, Panchkula, shall continue under the local police.
The appellant was named as an accused in FIR No. 215/2022 registered at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana), for offences under Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by respondent no. 3, a businessman engaged in the pharmaceutical sector, who alleged that the appellant impersonated an Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau and threatened him into transferring ₹1.49 crores into his account. It was further alleged that the complainant was coerced into conducting business with the appellant's associates, including co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna, and that undue pressure was applied to extract money from the complainant's firms.
An earlier FIR—No. 01/2022—had been registered on 06.01.2022 at Police Station CID-Bharari, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh), on similar allegations. Although the complainant in the current FIR was not named as a complainant in the Shimla FIR, the appellant contended that both complaints arose from the same issue and had been initiated at the behest of the present complainant. This earlier FIR was quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 10.01.2025, with the Court observing that it had been registered based on secret information and appeared to be an attempt to resolve civil disputes under the garb of criminal allegations.
Subsequent to the registration of FIR No. 215/2022, respondent no. 3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court allowed the petition by an order dated 17.05.2024 and directed that the investigation be handed over to the CBI. It was this order that the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.
In the petition filed before the High Court, the complainant alleged that the local police in Haryana might be compromised due to their acquaintance with the appellant. It was also alleged that the accused was often seen in the company of Haryana police officers, and that lower-ranking officers would be unable to investigate the matter effectively, particularly if high-ranking officials were involved.
The appellant disputed these claims, contending that the amount transferred to his account represented a loan from the complainant and not extorted funds. He further argued that the two FIRs covered similar facts and that the earlier complaint had already been quashed. The appellant also drew attention to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, chaired by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, to handle the matter.
While the High Court had accepted the complainant's assertions and directed a CBI probe, the appellant maintained that the allegations were vague and unsupported by material evidence. The appeal to the Supreme Court sought to restore the investigation to the state police authorities.
The Court stated that “CBI investigation should not be directed in a routine manner or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police.” Referring to the decision in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Court noted:
“Such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations…”
The Court recorded that the High Court failed to satisfy these standards and that the petition under Section 482 CrPC lacked substantive evidence:
“Vague and bald allegations were made in the Section 482 CrPC petition such as that the appellant was seen masquerading as an IB officer, and he was seen in the company of policemen of Haryana, etc.”
Addressing the complainant’s longstanding acquaintance with the accused, the Court observed: “Even if we assume that the appellant was impersonating himself as an IPS officer, it is difficult to believe that complainant was not able to find out the truth till October 2022.”
On the issue of investigating authority, the Court noted:
“The Commissioner, Panchkula had constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for the investigation.”
In reference to the allegation that Haryana Police officers were acquainted with the accused, the Court stated:
“The complainant has raised some allegations that high ranking police officials of Haryana Police are in connivance with the appellant, but such bald allegations are not sufficient to handover the case to CBI, without any kind of substantiation.”
The Court concluded: “We are of the view that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court.”
The Supreme Court, having considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the material on record, issued the following directions:
“Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 17.05.2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.”
It further recorded: “In light of the order in the main matter, the criminal appeal arising out of Diary No. 33284 of 2024 also stands disposed of.”
Addressing the contempt proceedings initiated due to the CBI’s registration of a fresh FIR during the pendency of a stay order, the Court stated:
“We accept the unconditional apology of Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar and do not wish to proceed any further in the contempt petition. Consequently, the notices given in the above Contempt Petition (C) No.772 of 2024 are hereby discharged and the Contempt Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.”
Lastly, the Court clarified:
“Observations made by this Court in the present order are only limited to the issue of directing CBI investigation and these observations must not affect the investigation in any way which has to be done by the police in relation to FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) in a fair and just manner.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shoeb Alam, Senior Advocate; Ms. Parul Shukla, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Mr. Saday Mondol, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Ms. Stuti Bisht, Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Mr. Aditya Goyal, Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Ms. Esha Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Singh, and Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Alok Sangwan, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Miss Aanchal Jain, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates-on-Record; Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Sabarni Som, Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Mr. Amit Ojha, Mr. Keshav Mittal, Ms. Shreya Jain, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. Rajat Nair, and Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocates
Full Case Title: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 433
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8403 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
