“Ifs” And “Buts” Without Any Definite Conclusion Not Sufficient To Put An Agency Like CBI Into Motion: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by the appellant accused against the order directing the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Referring to the judgment in Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002), the Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “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.”

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam represented the Appellant while Senior AAG Alok Sangwan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was made an accused in an FIR registered under Section 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the IPC. This FIR was lodged on the basis of information given by the complainant-third respondent (Jagbir Singh), where it had been alleged that the appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General (IG) of the 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. It was alleged that money was extorted from the complainant’s firms by putting undue pressure on the complainant.

The complainant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the transfer of investigation from the civil police of the State of Haryana to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the third respondent had been allowed by the High Court and the investigation was handed over to CBI. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

One more FIR was filed against the appellant, which, the appellant alleges, was on the same issue. Though the name of the present complainant was not there in the earlier FIR as a complainant, according to the present appellant, that too was initiated at the behest of the present complainant. However, this FIR was quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of both the FIRs, the Bench refused to accept the contention of the appellant that the two FIRs, the one which had already been quashed and the second in which the investigation was handed over to the CBI vide the impugned order, were broadly similar in nature. As per the Bench, they related to different incidents and might have had a different cause of action, though some incidents narrated in one did relate to the other. “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…” it said.

The Bench found that the claim of the complainant that the police officials were acquainted with the appellant and those officers may also be involved in the present case were not substantiated. “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”, the Bench noted.

Reference was made to the judgment in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010), wherein it has been observed that Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in exceptional cases. The Bench found that the parameters laid down in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (Supra) were not fulfilled in the present case to exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI investigation.

“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”, it further added.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the imugned judgment.

The Bench also noted that while issuing notice in the present matter, the Court had passed an interim order staying the impugned order. However, despite that, an FIR was registered by CBI, and the same led to the filing of a contempt case against CBI officials by the co-accused. Considering the unconditional apology given by Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of Branch, Special Crime Branch (CBI) for the registration of FIR despite the stay order, the Bench held that it would not proceed any further in the contempt petition.

Cause Title: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 433)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, AOR Parul Shukla, Advocates Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol, Naveen Kumar, Stuti Bisht, Nitesh Bhandari, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Aditya Goyal, Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Esha Kumar, Nidhi Singh, Utkarsh Chandra

Respondent: Senior AAG Alok Sangwan, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Sabarni Som, Shikhar Narwal, Aman Dev Sharma, Amit Ojha, Keshav Mittal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shreya Jain, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Navin Kumar, Rajat Nair, AOR Aanchal Jain, Advocate Karan Dewan

Click here to read/download Judgment