Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 433
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________ OF 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8403 OF 2024]
VINAY AGGARWAL …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 772/2024
IN SLP(Crl) No. 8403/2024
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)._______________OF 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). OF 2025]
Diary No(s). 33284/2024
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted.
2. The facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:11 IST
Reason:
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering
it to be the lead matter. The appellant before this Court was
Page 1 of 10
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
Page 2 of 10
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 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
Page 3 of 10
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
Page 4 of 10
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 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
Page 5 of 10
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
Page 6 of 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 433
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________ OF 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8403 OF 2024]
VINAY AGGARWAL …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 772/2024
IN SLP(Crl) No. 8403/2024
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)._______________OF 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). OF 2025]
Diary No(s). 33284/2024
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted.
2. The facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:11 IST
Reason:
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering
it to be the lead matter. The appellant before this Court was
Page 1 of 10
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
Page 2 of 10
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 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
Page 3 of 10
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
Page 4 of 10
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 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
Page 5 of 10
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
Page 6 of 10
| 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 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
Page 7 of 10
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.
Page 8 of 10
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.
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
Page 9 of 10
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.
.......……….…………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
..….....………………………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
April 2, 2025.
Page 10 of 10