2025 INSC 433
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND HON’BLE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)
VINAY AGGARWAL
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No._______________ OF 2025 [ @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.8403
OF 2024] With Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 772 Of 2024 IN SLP(Crl) No.
8403/2024 And Criminal Appeal No(S)._______________OF 2025 [ @ Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No(S). OF 2025] Diary No(S).
33284/2024-Decided on 02-04-2025
Criminal
Constitution of India,
Article 482 – Investigation by CBI – Challenge as to - High Court was
perhaps moved by the assertions made by the complainant that local police
officers who will do the investigation are of lesser ranks and that the matter
involves some high ranking officials and thus, local police will not be able to
investigate the matter properly – Held that these allegations are vague -
Commissioner, Panchkula had constituted a three-member Special Investigation
Team (SIT) under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)
for the investigation - Allegations are not against some high ranking IPS
officer but against a person who was allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS
officer - 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 - High Courts should
direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses
something calling for an investigation by CBI and it should not be done in a
routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations - The “ifs” and “buts”
without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI
into motion – Held that after going through the records of the case the present
case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the
High Court - Order of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
(Para
8 to 10)
JUDGMENT
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. :-
Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted.
2. The
facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal Appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering Nirmala Negi it to be the lead
matter. The appellant before this Court was made an accused in an FIR
No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) under Section
120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of
IPC. This FIR has been lodged on the basis of information given by
complainant-respondent no.3 (Jagbir Singh) where it has been alleged that the
appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General (IG) of Intelligence
Bureau (IB) and threatened the complainant to transfer Rs.1,49,00,000
into the appellant’s account. As per this FIR, the complainant, who is in the
business of pharmaceuticals, was coerced by the appellant to do business with
the appellant’s associates and friends including one Dr. Komal Khanna
(co-accused and appellant in criminal appeal arising out of Diary
No.33284/2024) and money was extorted from the complainant’s firms by putting
undue pressure on the complainant.
3.
The FIR itself was filed on 29.10.2022. The complainant then filed a petition
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of investigation from the civil
police of the State of Haryana to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for
short ‘CBI’). This petition (under Section 482 CrPC) filed
by respondent no.3, has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned order
dated 17.05.2024 where the learned Single Judge directed that the investigation
in the case be handed over to CBI. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant who is
the main accused in the FIR is before us.
4.
Prior to the registration of the abovementioned FIR, on 06.01.2022, an earlier
FIR being FIR No.01/2022 at P.S CID- Bharari, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) was
filed against appellant, which, the appellant alleges, was on the same issue
and though the name of the present complainant is not there in the earlier FIR
as complainant but, according to the present appellant, that too was initiated
at the behest of the present complainant. The appellant argued that this FIR in
Himachal Pradesh is on similar allegations alleging that the appellant, by
impersonating himself as an IG (IB), had extorted lacs
of rupees from industrialists including the complainant /respondent no.3. For
the quashing of this FIR (No.01/2022), the appellant had filed a petition
under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 has quashed FIR
No.01/2022 against the appellant. In this order dated 10.01.2025, Himachal
Pradesh High Court had observed that the FIR in Shimla was registered on the
basis of some secret information and the High Court further made observations
that the witnesses had made statements before police under Section
161 CrPC in order to settle some disputes with the appellant, which are
only civil in nature. Consequently, Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR
since the filing of the FIR itself seemed to be an abuse of the process of law.
5.
We have gone through both the FIRs. We may not agree with the contentions of
the appellant that the two FIRs, the one which has already been quashed and the
second in which the investigation has now been handed over to the CBI vide the
impugned order, are broadly similar in nature. They relate to different
incidents and may have a different cause of action though some incidents
narrated in one do relate to the other, but what is difficult for us to
comprehend is that when the present FIR itself was filed on 22.10.2022 and the
investigation itself was in its initial stage, then what was the burning hurry
for the complainant to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
as early as January 2023 seeking an investigation by CBI instead of local
police. 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. The
main ground taken by the complainant before the High Court was that the police
officials are acquainted with the appellant and those officers may also be
involved in the present case. These claims of the complainant are not
substantiated at all. Also, we may note that, in the same petition, the complainant
had admitted that he knew the appellant since 2019 as they were doing business
together and 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. Thus, in our considered view, the High
Court ought to have been slow in interfering in this matter as this is not a
case which should have been handed over to the CBI at the initial stage itself.
6.
While quashing the earlier FIR against the appellant, the Himachal Pradesh High
Court had also observed that the complainant and other witnesses have used the
FIR (No.01/2022) as a weapon to settle down the business disputes with the
appellant. The appellant also contends that the money shown to be transferred
in his account from the account of complainant’s firms is the money which was
taken by complainant as a loan. However, we are not expressing any views on the
merits of the case as all these aspects have to be seen during the investigation.
7.
We are only on the issue of handing over the investigation to the
CBI. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Five-Judge Bench of this Court held that
Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for CBI investigation, and
restrictions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 do not apply to Constitutional Courts. However, this Court had also
observed that CBI investigation should not be directed in a routine manner or
just because some allegations have been made against the local police. Courts
should direct for CBI investigation only in exceptional cases. This is what was
said by this Court:
“70.…Insofar as the
question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that 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 where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and
instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and
international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing
complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be
flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it
difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose
its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
8.
The parameters laid down by this Court in Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights (Supra) are not fulfilled in the present case so as to
exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI investigation. Moreover, in
our opinion, High Court was perhaps moved by the assertions made by the
complainant that local police officers who will do the investigation are of
lesser ranks and that the matter involves some high ranking officials and thus,
local police will not be able to investigate the matter properly. However,
these allegations are vague and moreover, 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. One should also take note that the allegations are not
against some high ranking IPS officer but against a person who was
allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS officer! 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.
9.
The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where
material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI
and it should not be done in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague
allegations. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not
sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion [See: Minor Irrigation
& Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002)
5 SCC 521]. After going through the records of the case, 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.
10.
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.
11.
In light of the order in the main matter, the criminal appeal arising out of
Diary No. 33284 of 2024 also stands disposed of.
12.
While issuing notice in the present matter, this Court had passed an interim
order dated 27.06.2024 staying the impugned order dated 17.05.2024. However,
despite that, an FIR was registered on 09.07.2024 by CBI and the same has led
to filing of a contempt case [Contempt Petition (C) No.772 of 2024] against CBI
officials by the co-accused (Dr. Komal Khanna). In this contempt petition, Dr.
Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of Branch, Special Crime Branch (CBI) had
appeared before this Court and had given an unconditional apology for
registration of FIR despite the stay order of this Court. In his affidavit, he
has deposed that FIR dated 09.07.2024 was registered by mistake since CBI was
not made aware of this Court’s interim order. He has further deposed that once
CBI got to know about this Court’s order, all remedial steps were taken in the
matter including the return of case papers to Haryana police. 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.
13.
Before parting, we would also like to note that 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.
14.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
------