Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab & Haryana High Court
CBI Investigation Plea To Be Granted Only In Exceptional Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court
|The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI in the alleged medical tourism case.
Dismissing a Petition to transfer an investigation to the CBI, the Punjab and Haryana High Court remarked that such transfers are reserved for exceptional circumstances, where the Court believes the accused's position could influence the investigation and prejudice the complainant's cause.
The FIR was registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC (Section 66D of the Information Technology Act added later) was based on a complaint filed by a Kenyan resident, who alleged she was cheated by the husband of the Petitioner, who ran a Dental Clinic in Chandigarh. The complainant claimed she was offered a medical tourism package including dentistry work, accommodation, and airfare. She made an advance payment and visited India, but alleged that neither proper accommodation was provided nor was the dentistry work as per the promise. The dentures prepared did not fit her gums, causing discomfort and pain, and she incurred extra money for treatment and adjustment in her own country.
A Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra held, “Before directing CBI to investigate a case, the Court must reach a conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record that a prima facie case is made out or not against the accused. However, the investigation by CBI is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is of the view that accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and may cause prejudice to the cause of the complainant.”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rajiv Anand represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The petitioner sought the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, submitting that she has been falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant and her husband. She contended that the ingredients for offences were not attracted against her. She also alleged that she was illegally taken to Delhi and kept in police custody due to grudges some police officers held against her husband, implying a tainted investigation due to the involvement of high-ranking police officers. She argued that no allegation was made against her by the complainant and that Advanced Dental Clinic is her husband's sole proprietary concern.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that a Constitutional Court can direct CBI to investigate a case even after a chargesheet has been filed or charges framed, or evidence recorded, to ensure fair and just investigation, especially when a grave suspicion arises regarding the investigation. However, this power is to be exercised “sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations” when the investigation is found to be tainted or biased. It reiterated that no one can insist on an investigation by a particular agency.
The Bench found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a "rare and exceptional case" to show that the investigation was tainted or biased. While the petitioner alleged police officers had grudges against her husband, no details were provided. The Court noted that based on allegations, the petitioner was presented as the proprietor of Advanced Dental Clinic and allegedly induced the complainant. The Court held that her claim of not being the proprietor appeared "prima facie" false, citing a previous complaint where she was held guilty as the proprietor of the clinic
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that no rare and exceptional case to show that the investigation is tainted, has been made out. As such, it cannot stated that the investigating agency had conducted a tainted or biased investigation at the behest of some high rank police officers/officials, thereby causing failure of justice. Thus, no case has been made out warranting interference by this Court and accepting the by this Court and accepting the prayer made by the petitioner for conducting of investigation by CBI.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Dr. Rosy Arora @ Dr. Rosy Dhawan & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:075381)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave; Advocate Puja Chopra
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajiv Anand; Advocate Ravi Kamal Gupta