VINAY AGGARWALversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 497 : 2025 INSC 433

                            Vinay Aggarwal
                                   v.
                     The State of Haryana and Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1744 of 2025)
                                 02 April 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       In the instant case, the Single Judge of the High Court directed
       that the investigation be handed over to CBI. Whether the order
       of the Single Judge of the High Court is sustainable.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The appellant was
       made an accused in an FIR No.215/2022 registered u/ss.120B,
       177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC – The complainant
       then filed a petition u/s.482 of the CrPC and sought transfer
       of investigation from the civil police of the State of Haryana
       to the CBI – The said petition was allowed by the High Court –
       Sustainability:
       Held: Vague and bald allegations were made in the s.482 CrPC
       petition such as that the appellant was seen masquerading as
       an IB officer, and he was seen in the company of policemen of
       Haryana, etc. – The main ground taken by the complainant before
       the High Court was that the police officials are acquainted with the
       appellant and those officers may also be involved in the present
       case – These claims of the complainant are not substantiated –
       It is settled that 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 – In the instant case, the complainant
       has raised some allegations that high ranking police officials of
       Haryana Police are in connivance with the appellant, but such bald
       allegations are not sufficient to handover the case to CBI, without
       any kind of substantiation – After going through the records of the
       case, this Court is of the view that the present case is not the one
       where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High

* Author
498                                                             [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Court – Hence, the order of the Single Judge of the High Court
       cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. [Paras 5, 7, 8, 9, 10]

                                Case Law Cited
       State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
       [2010] 2 SCR 979 : (2010) 3 SCC 571 – followed.
       Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram
       Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Vague and bald allegations; CBI investigation; Civil Police of State;
       Routine manner; Local Police; Transfer of investigation; Handing
       over of case to CBI.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1744 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2024 of the High Court
       of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 2097 of 2023
       With
       Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 772 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal
       No. 1752 of 2025

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., Ms. Parul Shukla, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey,
       Dev Sareen, Saday Mondol, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol,
       Naveen Kumar, Ms. Stuti Bisht, Nitesh Bhandari, Prabhat Kumar
       Rai, Aditya Goyal, Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Ms. Esha Kumar, Ms. Nidhi
       Singh, Utkarsh Chandra.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Vishal Malik, Karan Dewan,
       Miss Aanchal Jain, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat
       Sangwan, Ms. Sabarni Som, Shikhar Narwal, Ritesh Kumar Gupta,
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        499

            Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.


     Aman Dev Sharma, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Radhika Misra, Jagdish
     Chandra Solanki, Navin Kumar, Rajat Nair, Mukesh Kumar Maroria.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1.   Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted.
2.   The facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal Appeal
     arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering it to be the
     lead matter. The appellant before this Court was made an accused
     in an FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) under
     Section 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC. This FIR
     has been lodged on the basis of information given by complainant-
     respondent no.3 (Jagbir Singh) where it has been alleged that the
     appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General (IG) of
     Intelligence Bureau (IB) and threatened the complainant to transfer
     Rs.1,49,00,000 into the appellant’s account. As per this FIR, the
     complainant, who is in the business of pharmaceuticals, was coerced
     by the appellant to do business with the appellant’s associates and
     friends including one Dr. Komal Khanna (co-accused and appellant
     in criminal appeal arising out of Diary No.33284/2024) and money
     was extorted from the complainant’s firms by putting undue pressure
     on the complainant.
3.   The FIR itself was filed on 29.10.2022. The complainant then filed a
     petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’)
     before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of
     investigation from the civil police of the State of Haryana to the
     Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). This petition (under
     Section 482 CrPC) filed by respondent no.3, has been allowed by
     the High Court vide impugned order dated 17.05.2024 where the
     learned Single Judge directed that the investigation in the case be
     handed over to CBI. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant who is
     the main accused in the FIR is before us.
4.   Prior to the registration of the abovementioned FIR, on 06.01.2022,
     an earlier FIR being FIR No.01/2022 at P.S CID-Bharari, Shimla
     (Himachal Pradesh) was filed against appellant, which, the appellant
500                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       alleges, was on the same issue and though the name of the present
       complainant is not there in the earlier FIR as complainant but,
       according to the present appellant, that too was initiated at the
       behest of the present complainant. The appellant argued that this
       FIR in Himachal Pradesh is on similar allegations alleging that the
       appellant, by impersonating himself as an IG (IB), had extorted lacs
       of rupees from industrialists including the complainant /respondent
       no.3. For the quashing of this FIR (No.01/2022), the appellant had
       filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court of
       Himachal Pradesh. The Himachal Pradesh High Court vide order
       dated 10.01.2025 has quashed FIR No.01/2022 against the appellant.
       In this order dated 10.01.2025, Himachal Pradesh High Court had
       observed that the FIR in Shimla was registered on the basis of some
       secret information and the High Court further made observations that
       the witnesses had made statements before police under Section 161
       CrPC in order to settle some disputes with the appellant, which are
       only civil in nature. Consequently, Himachal Pradesh High Court
       quashed the FIR since the filing of the FIR itself seemed to be an
       abuse of the process of law.
5.     We have gone through both the FIRs. We may not agree with the
       contentions of the appellant that the two FIRs, the one which has
       already been quashed and the second in which the investigation
       has now been handed over to the CBI vide the impugned order, are
       broadly similar in nature. They relate to different incidents and may
       have a different cause of action though some incidents narrated in
       one do relate to the other, but what is difficult for us to comprehend
       is that when the present FIR itself was filed on 22.10.2022 and the
       investigation itself was in its initial stage, then what was the burning
       hurry for the complainant to approach the High Court under Section
       482 CrPC as early as January 2023 seeking an investigation by CBI
       instead of local police. Vague and bald allegations were made in
       the Section 482 CrPC petition such as that the appellant was seen
       masquerading as an IB officer, and he was seen in the company of
       policemen of Haryana, etc. The main ground taken by the complainant
       before the High Court was that the police officials are acquainted
       with the appellant and those officers may also be involved in the
       present case. These claims of the complainant are not substantiated
       at all. Also, we may note that, in the same petition, the complainant
       had admitted that he knew the appellant since 2019 as they were
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         501

            Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.


     doing business together and 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.
     Thus, in our considered view, the High Court ought to have been
     slow in interfering in this matter as this is not a case which should
     have been handed over to the CBI at the initial stage itself.
6.   While quashing the earlier FIR against the appellant, the Himachal
     Pradesh High Court had also observed that the complainant and
     other witnesses have used the FIR (No.01/2022) as a weapon to
     settle down the business disputes with the appellant. The appellant
     also contends that the money shown to be transferred in his account
     from the account of complainant’s firms is the money which was
     taken by complainant as a loan. However, we are not expressing
     any views on the merits of the case as all these aspects have to be
     seen during the investigation.
7.   We are only on the issue of handing over the investigation to the
     CBI. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
     Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Five-Judge Bench of this Court
     held that Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to direct for
     CBI investigation, and restrictions under the Delhi Special Police
     Establishment Act, 1946 do not apply to Constitutional Courts.
     However, this Court had also observed that 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. This is what was said
     by this Court:
           “70.…Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI
           to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although
           no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
           or not such power should be exercised but time and again
           it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be
           passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party
           has levelled some allegations against the local police.
           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
502                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
            fundamental rights. 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 and purpose with
            unsatisfactory investigations.”
8.     The parameters laid down by this Court in Committee for Protection
       of Democratic Rights (Supra) are not fulfilled in the present
       case so as to exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI
       investigation. Moreover, in our opinion, High Court was perhaps
       moved by the assertions made by the complainant that local police
       officers who will do the investigation are of lesser ranks and that
       the matter involves some high ranking officials and thus, local police
       will not be able to investigate the matter properly. However, these
       allegations are vague and moreover, the Commissioner, Panchkula
       had constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT)
       under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner of Police
       (ACP) for the investigation. One should also take note that the
       allegations are not against some high ranking IPS officer but against
       a person who was allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS officer!
       The complainant has raised some allegations that high ranking police
       officials of Haryana Police are in connivance with the appellant, but
       such bald allegations are not sufficient to handover the case to CBI,
       without any kind of substantiation.
9.     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
       [See: Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo
       Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521]. 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.
10. Hence, 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.
11. In light of the order in the main matter, the criminal appeal arising
    out of Diary No. 33284 of 2024 also stands disposed of.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                     503

               Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors.


12. While issuing notice in the present matter, this Court had passed
    an interim order dated 27.06.2024 staying the impugned order
    dated 17.05.2024. However, despite that, an FIR was registered
    on 09.07.2024 by CBI and the same has led to filing of a contempt
    case [Contempt Petition (C) No.772 of 2024] against CBI officials by
    the co-accused (Dr. Komal Khanna). In this contempt petition, Dr.
    Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of Branch, Special Crime Branch
    (CBI) had appeared before this Court and had given an unconditional
    apology for registration of FIR despite the stay order of this Court.
    In his affidavit, he has deposed that FIR dated 09.07.2024 was
    registered by mistake since CBI was not made aware of this Court’s
    interim order. He has further deposed that once CBI got to know
    about this Court’s order, all remedial steps were taken in the matter
    including the return of case papers to Haryana police. We accept the
    unconditional apology of Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar and do not wish
    to proceed any further in the contempt petition. Consequently, the
    notices given in the above Contempt Petition (C) No.772 of 2024
    are hereby discharged and the Contempt Petition stands disposed
    of in the above terms.
13. Before parting, we would also like to note that observations made
    by this Court in the present order are only limited to the issue of
    directing CBI investigation and these observations must not affect
    the investigation in any way which has to be done by the police in
    relation to FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana)
    in a fair and just manner.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan