Read E-Book: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/lwrg/

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 19 : 2025 INSC 433 : JT 2025 (4) SC 180

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Date of Judgment: April 2, 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 8403/2024)
Parties: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.

Criminal Procedure – Investigation – Transfer to CBI – Scope of Constitutional Courts’ Power – Exceptional Circumstances Required. 

Appellant accused in FIR for impersonation, extortion, and cheating – Complainant sought transfer of investigation from Haryana Police to CBI under Section 482 CrPC – Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed transfer based on vague allegations of police collusion.

Held

Constitutional Courts may direct CBI investigation only in exceptional cases with national/international ramifications or to ensure justice – Routine or unsubstantiated allegations against local police insufficient – Complainant’s claims lacked prima facie evidence – High Court’s order premature as investigation was in initial stage and Special Investigation Team was constituted.

State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 and Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 followed.

High Court’s order set aside, investigation to continue with Haryana Police – Observations limited to CBI transfer issue, not to affect fair investigation.

Contempt of Court – Breach of Stay Order – Apology Accepted – CBI registered FIR despite Supreme Court’s interim stay – Contempt petition filed – CBI officer offered unconditional apology, citing mistake – Remedial steps taken – Apology accepted, contempt petition disposed.

Appeal allowed; Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 772/2024 and related appeal disposed.

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 772/2024 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

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-05-2024 in CRMM No. 2097/2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Stuti Bisht, Adv. Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Esha Kumar, Adv. Reason: Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv.

Facts

• Background: The appellant, Vinay Aggarwal, was accused in FIR No. 215/2022, registered on October 29, 2022, at P.S. Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, under Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, Jagbir Singh (Respondent No. 3), alleged that the appellant impersonated an Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), coerced him to transfer Rs. 1,49,00,000 to the appellant’s account, and extorted money by pressuring him to do business with the appellant’s associates, including Dr. Komal Khanna (co-accused).
• Prior FIR: An earlier FIR (No. 01/2022) was filed against the appellant in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on January 6, 2022, with similar allegations of impersonation and extortion. This FIR was quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on January 10, 2025, as an abuse of process, noting that the disputes were civil in nature.
• High Court Proceedings: The complainant filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to transfer the investigation of FIR No. 215/2022 from the Haryana Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On May 17, 2024, the High Court allowed the petition and directed a CBI investigation, citing vague allegations of the appellant’s connections with Haryana Police.
• Appeal: Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

Issues

1. Whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in directing a CBI investigation into FIR No. 215/2022 at the initial stage of the investigation.
2. Whether the allegations against the appellant warranted the extraordinary measure of transferring the investigation to the CBI.
3. Disposal of related contempt petition arising from the CBI’s registration of an FIR despite a Supreme Court stay order.

Arguments

• Appellant’s Contentions:
  • The FIR in Haryana was similar to the quashed Shimla FIR, both initiated by the complainant to settle business disputes.
  • The money allegedly extorted was a loan taken by the complainant.
  • The complainant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC lacked substantiation, relying on vague allegations of the appellant’s connections with Haryana Police.
  • The High Court prematurely ordered a CBI investigation without sufficient grounds, as the local police investigation was still in its initial stage.
• Respondent’s Contentions:
  • The complainant alleged that the appellant impersonated an IB officer, coerced him into business dealings, and extorted money.
  • The Haryana Police were allegedly acquainted with the appellant, compromising their ability to conduct an impartial investigation.
  • The involvement of high-ranking officials necessitated a CBI investigation to ensure credibility.

Judgment

• Issue 1: CBI Investigation
  • The Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in directing a CBI investigation at the initial stage of the investigation. The Court relied on State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571, which states that Constitutional Courts may direct CBI investigations only in exceptional cases, such as those with national or international ramifications or where necessary to ensure justice and protect fundamental rights. Routine allegations against local police do not suffice.
  • The complainant’s allegations of police collusion were vague and unsubstantiated. The Court noted that the complainant had known the appellant since 2019 and questioned the delay in discovering the alleged impersonation until October 2022.
  • A Special Investigation Team (SIT) under an Assistant Commissioner of Police had already been constituted by the Commissioner of Panchkula, indicating that the local police were capable of investigating the matter.
  • The Court emphasized that CBI investigations should not be ordered routinely, as per Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521, and found no prima facie material justifying CBI involvement.
  • Conclusion: The High Court’s order dated May 17, 2024, was set aside, and the investigation was directed to continue with the Haryana Police.
• Issue 2: Merits of the Case
  • The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations, leaving them to be examined during the investigation. Observations were limited to the propriety of directing a CBI investigation.

• Issue 3: Contempt Petition
  • Despite the Supreme Court’s interim stay order dated June 27, 2024, the CBI registered an FIR on July 9, 2024, prompting a contempt petition by co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna.
  • Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS (CBI), offered an unconditional apology, stating that the FIR was registered due to a mistake and that remedial steps were taken, including returning case papers to the Haryana Police.
  • The Court accepted the apology, discharged the contempt notices, and disposed of the contempt petition.
• Disposition:
  • The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order directing a CBI investigation was quashed.
  • The criminal appeal arising out of Diary No. 33284/2024 was disposed of in light of the main matter.
  • The contempt petition (No. 772/2024) was disposed of with no further action.
  • The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the CBI investigation issue and should not influence the ongoing investigation by the Haryana Police, which must be conducted fairly.

Ratio Decidendi

• Constitutional Courts have the power to direct CBI investigations, but this power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances where prima facie material discloses the need for such an investigation.
• Vague or unsubstantiated allegations against local police do not justify transferring an investigation to the CBI, especially when the investigation is in its initial stage and a competent local investigation team is in place.

Obiter Dicta

• The Court expressed skepticism about the complainant’s delay in approaching the High Court for a CBI investigation and the credibility of his claim of being unaware of the appellant’s alleged impersonation until October 2022, given their business relationship since 2019.
• The Court noted the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s finding that the earlier FIR was an abuse of process to settle civil disputes, but did not equate the two FIRs.

Significance

• Reinforces the principle that CBI investigations are not to be ordered routinely and require exceptional circumstances, as established in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights.
• Highlights the need for substantiated allegations and prima facie evidence before Constitutional Courts interfere with local police investigations.
• Emphasizes judicial restraint in directing CBI investigations to prevent overburdening the agency and undermining local police credibility.

Law FAQ: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.

Based on LL 2025 (4) SC 19, Supreme Court of India, April 2, 2025

1. What is the main issue addressed in Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.?

The primary issue was whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in directing the transfer of a criminal investigation from the Haryana Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the initial stage, based on vague allegations of police collusion with the accused.

2. What are the key facts of the case?

• The appellant, Vinay Aggarwal, was accused in an FIR (No. 215/2022) in Haryana for impersonating an Intelligence Bureau officer, extorting Rs. 1,49,00,000, and coercing the complainant into business dealings.
• The complainant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI, alleging local police bias.
• The High Court allowed the transfer on May 17, 2024, which the appellant challenged in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the investigation to continue with the Haryana Police.

3. When can a Constitutional Court direct a CBI investigation?

According to the Supreme Court, Constitutional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) can direct a CBI investigation under exceptional circumstances, such as:

• Cases with national or international ramifications.
• Situations where it is necessary to ensure credibility, instill public confidence, or protect fundamental rights.
• Instances requiring complete justice due to the gravity of the allegations or involvement of high-ranking officials. However, such directions should not be issued routinely or based on vague allegations against local police.

4. Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI?

The Supreme Court found that:

• The complainant’s allegations of police collusion were vague and lacked substantiation.
• The investigation was in its initial stage, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by an Assistant Commissioner of Police had been formed, indicating local police capability.
• The case did not meet the exceptional criteria outlined in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571, such as national importance or evidence of systemic bias.
• Ordering a CBI investigation prematurely could overburden the CBI and undermine local police credibility.

5. What legal principles were relied upon by the Supreme Court?

The Court relied on:

• State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571: Constitutional Courts have the power to direct CBI investigations, but this should be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations.
• Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521: CBI investigations should not be ordered based on speculative or inconclusive allegations without prima facie evidence.

6. What is the significance of the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” in CBI investigations?

The requirement ensures that:

• The CBI, with limited resources, focuses on serious cases of national or international importance.
• Local police are not undermined unless there is clear evidence of bias or inability to investigate.
• Judicial intervention in investigations remains minimal, preserving the separation of powers and the autonomy of state police forces.

7. Can vague allegations against local police justify a CBI investigation?

No. The Supreme Court emphasized that bald or unsubstantiated claims, such as alleged acquaintance between the accused and police, are insufficient to warrant a CBI investigation. There must be prima facie evidence of bias, misconduct, or other exceptional factors.

8. What happened in the contempt petition related to this case?

• The Supreme Court had issued an interim stay on June 27, 2024, halting the High Court’s order for a CBI investigation.
• Despite the stay, the CBI registered an FIR on July 9, 2024, leading to a contempt petition by a co-accused.
• The CBI officer apologized unconditionally, stating the FIR was registered by mistake and that case papers were returned to the Haryana Police.
• The Supreme Court accepted the apology, discharged the contempt notices, and disposed of the petition.

9. How does this case clarify the role of Constitutional Courts in criminal investigations?

The case reinforces that Constitutional Courts should exercise restraint when interfering with ongoing investigations. Directing a CBI investigation is an extraordinary measure that requires clear justification, such as evidence of systemic failure or significant public interest, to avoid overburdening the CBI and disrespecting local police capabilities.

10. Does the Supreme Court’s ruling affect the merits of the allegations against the accused?

No. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that its observations were limited to the issue of transferring the investigation to the CBI. The merits of the allegations (e.g., impersonation, extortion) are to be examined during the investigation by the Haryana Police, which must be conducted fairly and justly.

11. What should complainants consider before seeking a CBI investigation through a High Court?

Complainants should:

• Provide specific, substantiated evidence of local police bias or incompetence.
• Demonstrate why the case meets exceptional criteria, such as national importance or involvement of high-ranking officials.
• Avoid premature petitions when the investigation is still in its early stages and local mechanisms (e.g., SITs) are in place.

12. How does this case impact the balance between state police and central agencies like the CBI?

The ruling underscores the primacy of state police in conducting investigations unless exceptional circumstances justify central agency involvement. It protects the federal structure by ensuring that state police are not bypassed without strong evidence, while also preserving the CBI’s role for significant cases.

13. Where can I find the full text of the judgment?

The judgment, cited as LL 2025 (4) SC 19, can be accessed through legal databases, the Supreme Court of India’s official website (www.sci.gov.in), or law libraries. It is also published in legal journals and reporters.

14. What is the takeaway for legal practitioners and courts?

Legal practitioners and courts should:

• Exercise caution when seeking or ordering CBI investigations, ensuring compliance with the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights guidelines.
• Scrutinize allegations for specificity and evidence before interfering with local police investigations.
• Recognize that Constitutional Courts’ powers, while broad, are not to be used routinely to override state police jurisdiction.