A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors. addresses the judicial limits on directing transfer of criminal investigation from State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court scrutinised the legality and sustainability of an order passed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing CBI investigation at a nascent stage of inquiry based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations against local police officials.

The appellant, accused of impersonation and financial extortion under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, challenged the High Court’s intervention contending absence of exceptional circumstances warranting such extraordinary relief.

The Court reaffirmed settled constitutional jurisprudence that although Constitutional Courts possess wide powers to direct CBI investigation, such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional cases. Mere allegations of police bias, without cogent material or prima facie evidence, were held insufficient. The judgment emphasises judicial restraint, federal balance, and institutional respect for State investigative machinery.

By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that extraordinary investigative transfers cannot be invoked as a matter of course, thereby reinforcing procedural discipline and safeguarding investigative autonomy.

Keywords:
CBI Investigation; Section 482 CrPC; Transfer of Investigation; Vague Allegations; Judicial Restraint; Local Police

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present judgment arises from an appeal challenging judicial interference in the investigative process through the transfer of a criminal case from the Haryana Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The controversy emanated from the High Court’s exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, a provision traditionally reserved for preventing abuse of process and securing ends of justice. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether such power had been exercised within permissible constitutional limits.

The appellant was named as an accused in an FIR alleging impersonation as a senior Intelligence Bureau officer and extortion of substantial funds from the complainant, a pharmaceutical businessman. While investigation by the local police had commenced, the complainant approached the High Court alleging connivance between the appellant and local police officials, thereby seeking a CBI probe. The High Court allowed the petition, directing transfer of investigation at an early stage.

The Supreme Court situates this dispute within a long-standing constitutional tension between safeguarding fair investigation and respecting the autonomy of State police forces. Drawing from authoritative precedent, the Court reiterates that CBI investigation is an extraordinary remedy, not a default mechanism to assuage apprehensions of litigants. The judgment thus serves as a reaffirmation of judicial discipline in criminal process administration, particularly in relation to investigative transfers grounded on speculative or unsubstantiated allegations.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

An FIR bearing No. 215/2022 was registered on 29.10.2022 at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, under Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that the appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General of the Intelligence Bureau and coerced the complainant into transferring ₹1.49 crore while forcing business dealings with his associates. The complainant asserted that threats and pressure tactics were employed to extort funds.

Subsequent to registration of the FIR, instead of cooperating with the ongoing investigation, the complainant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in January 2023 seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI. The principal ground raised was alleged familiarity and connivance between the appellant and local police officials, without naming any specific officer or producing supporting material.

Notably, the appellant highlighted that an earlier FIR bearing No. 01/2022 on similar allegations had been registered in Himachal Pradesh and was subsequently quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 10.01.2025, holding it to be an abuse of process and essentially civil in nature. Despite this, the High Court allowed the complainant’s petition and directed CBI investigation.

The Supreme Court examined these factual circumstances alongside the timing of the petition and absence of investigative lapses, finding the High Court’s intervention premature and unsupported by concrete evidence .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court was justified in directing transfer of investigation to the CBI under Section 482 CrPC at an initial stage?
ii. Whether vague and unsubstantiated allegations against local police warrant invocation of extraordinary investigative powers?
iii. Whether the impugned order violates settled principles governing CBI investigations?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction mechanically and without application of mind. It was contended that no exceptional circumstance existed to justify transfer of investigation. The appellant argued that mere allegations of police familiarity, unsupported by material evidence, cannot displace the statutory investigative process. Reliance was placed on the fact that a Special Investigation Team had already been constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula.

It was further argued that the complainant had admitted to knowing the appellant since 2019, thereby diluting claims of sudden discovery of impersonation. The appellant also relied on the quashing of the earlier FIR by the Himachal Pradesh High Court to demonstrate abuse of criminal process and mala fide intent.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that the seriousness of allegations involving impersonation of a senior intelligence officer and alleged police connivance necessitated an independent agency investigation. It was argued that local police officials, being of lower rank, would be unable to investigate a matter involving alleged influence and misuse of authority. The respondent justified the High Court’s order as essential to maintain public confidence in the investigative process.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
iii. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction to transfer investigation to the CBI was unsustainable. The Court reiterated that while Constitutional Courts possess the power to direct CBI investigation, such power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Reliance was placed on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, where it was held that CBI investigation cannot be ordered routinely or merely on allegations against local police.

The Court found that the allegations made in the Section 482 CrPC petition were vague, bald, and devoid of substantiation. The complainant failed to produce any material indicating bias, dereliction, or collusion by investigating officers. The existence of an SIT further negated the need for extraordinary intervention.

The Court emphasised that investigative transfers at an embryonic stage undermine statutory processes and erode federal balance. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 was set aside and the appeal allowed .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in reaffirming that CBI investigation is an exception, not a rule. Vague allegations, conjectures, or speculative apprehensions against State police do not constitute “exceptional circumstances”. Courts must insist on prima facie material demonstrating investigative failure or bias. Transfer of investigation without such foundation amounts to judicial overreach and abuse of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that litigants increasingly seek CBI investigations as a matter of strategy rather than necessity. Such practice, if unchecked, would overburden the CBI and dilute its effectiveness. The Court also cautioned that judicial interference at an early stage can derail fact-finding and prejudice fair investigation.

c) GUIDELINES

i. CBI investigation should be ordered only in exceptional and rare circumstances.
ii. Courts must require prima facie material showing bias or failure of local police.
iii. Vague allegations without substantiation are insufficient.
iv. Judicial restraint must be exercised, particularly at early stages of investigation.
v. Federal balance and investigative autonomy must be respected.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces constitutional discipline in criminal procedure by clearly demarcating the limits of judicial intervention in investigations. It safeguards the principle that extraordinary remedies cannot be invoked on speculative grounds. By restoring faith in statutory investigative mechanisms, the Court balances individual rights with institutional integrity. The ruling is a significant reaffirmation of judicial restraint, federalism, and procedural propriety within Indian criminal jurisprudence.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, [2010] 2 SCR 979 : (2010) 3 SCC 571
ii. Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860
iii. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946