In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that High Courts should not direct Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probes in a routine manner or merely on the basis of unsubstantiated or vague allegations.
The verdict came in the case of Vinay Aggarwal vs The State of Haryana & Ors., where the apex court, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal and set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that had transferred a local police investigation to the CBI.
“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,”
— Supreme Court
Read Also:- Jammu & Kashmir Apni Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
Background of the Case
An FIR (No. 215/2022) was lodged at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana), against the appellant Vinay Aggarwal, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506. It was alleged that the appellant impersonated an Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer and extorted ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, Jagbir Singh, a pharmaceutical businessman.
Singh also claimed that he was pressured into doing business with the appellant’s associates, including co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna. Following the registration of the FIR on October 29, 2022, the complainant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking a transfer of the investigation to the CBI, alleging collusion between the accused and Haryana police.
On May 17, 2024, the High Court allowed the petition and handed over the investigation to the CBI.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on vague and unsubstantiated claims, such as the appellant being seen in the company of local police officials. The court questioned the urgency in approaching the High Court for a CBI probe when the investigation was still in its early stages.
“We may not agree with the contention that both FIRs were similar in nature. But what is difficult for us to comprehend is the burning hurry with which the complainant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC,”
— Supreme Court
The court referred to the earlier FIR (No. 01/2022) filed in Himachal Pradesh on similar allegations, which had already been quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That court had found that the FIR appeared to be an abuse of the legal process and stemmed from business disputes, which were civil in nature.
Read Also:- Once Tax Is Assessed, Full Amount Must Be Paid Unless Covered Under Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, where it was held that although constitutional courts can direct CBI investigations, such power must be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations.
“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 such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights,”
— Constitution Bench in Democratic Rights Case (2010)
The court noted that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already been formed under the Assistant Commissioner of Police by the Commissioner of Panchkula, and there was no indication of bias or incapability.
Read also:- J&K High Court: Able-Bodied Adult Daughters Not Entitled to Maintenance from Father
Importantly, the appellant had argued that the money received was a loan from the complainant's firm and denied all charges. However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the case but only on the issue of whether a CBI investigation was warranted.
“This is not a case which should have been handed over to the CBI at the initial stage itself,”
— Supreme Court
Despite the Supreme Court’s interim stay on the High Court’s CBI transfer order on June 27, 2024, the CBI registered a fresh FIR on July 9, 2024. This led to a contempt petition against CBI officials by co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna.
Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of the Special Crime Branch, CBI, appeared before the court and tendered an unconditional apology, stating that the FIR was registered due to a lack of awareness about the stay order. The court accepted his apology and discharged the contempt petition.
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- The High Court acted prematurely in transferring the investigation to the CBI.
- The vague allegations lacked sufficient basis for CBI involvement.
- The local police, particularly the SIT, should continue the investigation.
“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,”
— Supreme Court Judgment
Case Title: VINAY AGGARWAL Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dev Sareen, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. 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. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Malik, Adv. Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Radhika Misra, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
