Reiterating the need for judicial restraint in invoking extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts must ensure the presence of prima facie material before transferring investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The ruling came in Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8403/2024], titled Vinay Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., where the appellant challenged a May 2024 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that directed CBI to investigate an extortion and impersonation case.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. Senior Advocate R. Basant appeared for the appellant Vinay Aggarwal, while Ms. Nirmala Negi, AAG for Haryana, represented the State. The complainant, Jagbir Singh, a pharmaceutical businessman, was represented by Advocate Sandeep Singh.
Background
The case arose from FIR No. 215/2022, registered at P.S. Sector 20, Panchkula, against Vinay Aggarwal, who was accused of impersonating an Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and coercing the complainant into transferring Rs. 1.49 crore under threats and deceit. The FIR alleged that Aggarwal forced the complainant to engage in business with his associates, including co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna.
Interestingly, an earlier FIR (No. 01/2022) had also been lodged against Aggarwal in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on similar allegations. However, that FIR was quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in January 2025, citing it as an abuse of legal process and an attempt to settle civil disputes through criminal complaints.
In the Panchkula matter, the complainant sought transfer of investigation to the CBI, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed in May 2024, citing concerns about local police connivance and inefficiency.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court observed that no credible, substantiated material had been placed on record to justify handing over the investigation to the CBI. The Court cautioned that merely alleging proximity of the accused with local police is insufficient to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.
“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 Court observed.
Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], the Bench reiterated that while constitutional courts are empowered to direct CBI probes, such powers are to be exercised “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.”
Quoting the earlier precedent, the judgment stated:
“This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations… 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.”
The Court also took note of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, under the chairmanship of an ACP, and stated that the investigation had been proceeding appropriately. The allegation that the accused was seen with local policemen was termed “vague and bald”.
“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,” the Bench noted critically.
Contempt Issue Against CBI Officials
The Court also addressed a contempt petition filed by co-accused Dr. Komal Khanna after CBI registered an FIR on 9 July 2024, despite the Supreme Court’s interim stay on 27 June 2024. Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of Special Crime Branch (CBI), appeared and tendered an unconditional apology, stating the registration was a mistake due to lack of communication of the stay order.
Accepting the apology and noting the return of case papers to the Haryana police, the Bench discharged the contempt notices and disposed of the contempt petition.
Final Order
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated 17 May 2024, observing that the direction to the CBI was premature and unsubstantiated. However, it clarified that its findings are limited to the issue of transfer of investigation and shall not affect the ongoing probe in FIR No. 215/2022, which must proceed fairly and lawfully.
