Introduction
Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 433
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.
When should a case be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving allegations of impersonation and extortion. The Court overturned a decision by the High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI, reaffirming that such transfers should only occur in exceptional circumstances. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR (No. 215/2022) filed at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, against Vinay Aggarwal (the appellant) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 177 (furnishing false information), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating), Section 467 (forgery of valuable security), Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). The FIR was based on a complaint by Jagbir Singh (respondent no. 3), who alleged that Aggarwal impersonated an Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and coerced him to transfer ₹1,49,00,000 into Aggarwal’s account.
According to the FIR, Jagbir Singh, who is in the pharmaceutical business, was pressured by Aggarwal to conduct business with Aggarwal’s associates, including Dr. Komal Khanna. It was alleged that money was extorted from Singh’s firms through undue pressure.
Prior to this FIR, another FIR (No. 01/2022) was filed against Aggarwal on January 6, 2022, at P.S CID-Bharari, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Aggarwal claimed that this earlier FIR was based on the same issue, alleging that he had extorted lakhs of rupees from industrialists, including Jagbir Singh, by impersonating an IG (IB). Aggarwal filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to quash this FIR.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 6, 2022 | FIR No. 01/2022 filed against Vinay Aggarwal at P.S CID-Bharari, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. |
| October 29, 2022 | FIR No. 215/2022 filed against Vinay Aggarwal at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana. |
| January 2023 | Jagbir Singh filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBI. |
| May 17, 2024 | Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition, directing the investigation to be handed over to CBI. |
| June 27, 2024 | The Supreme Court passed an interim order staying the High Court’s order dated May 17, 2024. |
| July 9, 2024 | An FIR was registered by CBI. |
| January 10, 2025 | Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed FIR No. 01/2022 against Vinay Aggarwal. |
| April 2, 2025 | Supreme Court set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 17, 2024, and allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
Jagbir Singh filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking the transfer of the investigation from the Haryana police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The High Court allowed this petition on May 17, 2024, leading Vinay Aggarwal, the main accused, to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Aggarwal had also filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, seeking to quash FIR No. 01/2022. The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed this FIR on January 10, 2025, observing that the FIR was registered based on some secret information and that witnesses had made statements under Section 161 CrPC to settle civil disputes with Aggarwal, thus deeming the FIR an abuse of the legal process.
Legal Framework
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 177, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses the offense of furnishing false information.
- Section 406, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to criminal breach of trust.
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Covers the offense of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 467, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relates to forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
- Section 468, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Concerns forgery for the purpose of cheating.
- Section 471, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses the offense of criminal intimidation.
- Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Arguments
- Appellant’s Arguments (Vinay Aggarwal):
- The FIR in Himachal Pradesh (No. 01/2022) was on similar allegations, and though Jagbir Singh was not the complainant in that FIR, it was initiated at his behest.
- The Himachal Pradesh High Court had quashed FIR No. 01/2022, observing that it was used to settle business disputes.
- The money transferred to his account was a loan from the complainant’s firms.
- Respondent’s Arguments (State of Haryana and Jagbir Singh):
- Vinay Aggarwal impersonated an IG (IB) and threatened Jagbir Singh to transfer ₹1,49,00,000 into his account.
- Aggarwal coerced Singh to do business with his associates and extorted money from Singh’s firms by putting undue pressure.
- The police officials are acquainted with the appellant, and those officers may also be involved in the present case.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Similarity of FIRs |
✓ The FIR in Himachal Pradesh was based on similar allegations. ✓ The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR, indicating misuse for settling disputes. |
✓ The FIRs relate to different incidents and have different causes of action. |
| Nature of Transactions | ✓ The money transferred was a loan from the complainant’s firms. |
✓ Aggarwal impersonated an IG (IB) and coerced Singh to transfer money. ✓ Aggarwal extorted money through undue pressure. |
| Investigation by CBI | ✓ Police officials are acquainted with the appellant and may be involved. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing the investigation to be handed over to the CBI.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in directing the investigation to be handed over to the CBI. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was not justified and set it aside. | The Court emphasized that CBI investigations should not be directed in a routine manner or merely because allegations have been made against the local police. Such directions should only be given in exceptional cases where necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations, or for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. The Court found that the parameters for directing a CBI investigation were not met in this case. |
Authorities
- State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 (Supreme Court of India):
- Legal Point: Constitutional Courts are empowered to direct CBI investigation, but it should not be a routine matter.
- Relevance: The court referred to this case to reiterate that CBI investigations should only be directed in exceptional cases, not as a routine matter or merely because allegations have been made against the local police.
- Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 (Supreme Court of India):
- Legal Point: CBI investigation should not be initiated on vague allegations.
- Relevance: The court cited this case to emphasize that “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | The FIR in Himachal Pradesh was on similar allegations and was quashed. | The Court acknowledged the quashing of the FIR but noted that the two FIRs relate to different incidents and may have different causes of action. |
| Appellant | The money transferred was a loan. | The Court did not express any views on the merits of this claim, stating that it should be seen during the investigation. |
| Respondent | The police officials are acquainted with the appellant and may be involved. | The Court found these allegations to be vague and unsubstantiated, noting that the Commissioner, Panchkula, had constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for the investigation. |
| Respondent | The matter involves some high-ranking officials, so local police will not be able to investigate properly. | The Court noted that the allegations are against a person impersonating as an IPS officer, not against high-ranking IPS officers, and that bald allegations are not sufficient to hand over the case to CBI. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 (Supreme Court of India): The court followed this authority to emphasize that CBI investigations should not be directed in a routine manner but only in exceptional cases.
- Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 (Supreme Court of India): The court followed this authority to highlight that vague allegations are insufficient to warrant a CBI investigation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that CBI investigations should be reserved for exceptional cases, not initiated routinely. The Court found that the High Court had erred in directing a CBI investigation based on vague allegations and without sufficient substantiation. The fact that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already been constituted by the local police also weighed against transferring the investigation to the CBI.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Principle of CBI investigation being reserved for exceptional cases | 40% |
| Vague and unsubstantiated allegations | 30% |
| Constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by local police | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case) | 45% |
| Law (percentage of legal considerations) | 55% |
The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
High Court directed CBI investigation → Allegations were vague and unsubstantiated → Parameters for CBI investigation not met → Special Investigation Team (SIT) already constituted → CBI investigation order set aside
The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the threshold for directing a CBI investigation was not met in this case.
The decision was reached by emphasizing the need for restraint in directing CBI investigations and the importance of substantiating allegations before doing so.
The court’s reasoning included:
- CBI investigations should not be directed in a routine manner.
- Allegations must be substantiated before directing a CBI investigation.
- The constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by local police is a relevant factor.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- CBI investigations should not be directed in a routine manner.
- Allegations must be substantiated before directing a CBI investigation.
- The constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by local police is a relevant factor.
- The parameters laid down by this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights are not fulfilled in the present case so as to exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI investigation.
Directions
The Court directed that the observations made in the order are limited to the issue of directing CBI investigation and must not affect the police investigation in FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana), which has to be done in a fair and just manner.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that CBI investigations should not be directed in a routine manner but only in exceptional cases where necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations, or for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had directed the investigation to be handed over to the CBI. The Court reiterated that CBI investigations should only be directed in exceptional cases and not as a routine matter. The appeal was allowed, and the contempt petition against CBI officials was discharged after the unconditional apology of Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, was accepted.