Recently, the Supreme Court quashed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order transferring an impersonation and extortion case from the Haryana Police to the CBI. The Court was hearing a plea by the accused challenging the transfer and held that such extraordinary powers must be exercised sparingly. It observed, “Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in exceptional cases".
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an FIR filed in Panchkula, Haryana, alleging that the appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General of the Intelligence Bureau and coerced a pharmaceutical businessman to transfer large sums of money into his account. The businessman, also the complainant, claimed he was pressured to do business with the appellant’s associates. Allegedly, the appellant and his associates extorted money by threatening and deceiving the complainant under the guise of high-ranking authority.
Prior to this, an FIR on similar allegations was registered in Himachal Pradesh against the appellant. That FIR was later quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which held that the case appeared to be based on unsubstantiated statements and seemed to arise from civil business disputes. Following the FIR in Haryana, the complainant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI. The High Court allowed the plea, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the appellant:
The appellant argued that the two FIRs, one already quashed and the other under challenge, were largely similar and rooted in business transactions gone sour. He contended that the second FIR was an attempt to reopen the same dispute in another jurisdiction and that the complainant used the criminal justice system as a tool to settle civil business disagreements. The appellant further questioned the urgency with which the complainant sought a CBI probe despite the investigation being at a preliminary stage. Counsel also submitted that the money transferred into his account was in fact a loan, and the allegations lacked credible evidence.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court found no compelling reason for the early intervention of the High Court directing a CBI probe. It noted, “When the present FIR itself was filed in October 2022 and the investigation was in its initial stage, what was the burning hurry for the complainant to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC as early as January 2023 seeking CBI investigation?”
The Court expressed skepticism about the complainant’s claim of being unaware of the appellant’s true identity despite knowing him since 2019 and doing business together. It stated that vague and bald allegations, such as the appellant being seen with Haryana police officials, could not justify the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Citing the five-judge bench decision in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Court reiterated, “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.”
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order transferring the investigation to the CBI. However, it clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case, and the ongoing investigation by the state police may proceed in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Vinay Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case No: SLP (crl) No. 8403 of 2024
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shoeb Alam (Sr. Adv), Parul Shukla (AOR), Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol, Naveen Kumar (AOR), Stuti Bisht, Nitesh Bhandari, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Aditya Goyal, Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Esha Kumar, Nidhi Singh, Utkarsh Chandra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Alok Sangwan (Sr. A.A.G.), Samar Vijay Singh (AOR), Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Sabarni Som, Shikhar Narwal, Aman Dev Sharma, Amit Ojha, Keshav Mittal, Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General), Aishwarya Bhati (A.S.G.), Mukesh Kumar Maroria (AOR), Shreya Jain, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Navin Kumar, Rajat Nair, Aanchal Jain (AOR), Karan Dewanani
Picture Source :
