A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment concerns an appeal against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation arising from FIR No.215/2022 registered at P.S. Sector-20, Panchkula, under various penal provisions including ss.120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. The complainant sought a transfer of investigation under Section 482 CrPC, alleging that the accused impersonated an Inspector General (IB) and extorted large sums, and further asserting that some local police officers were acquainted with and possibly in collusion with the accused. The High Court (Single Judge) ordered CBI investigation; the accused challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court (Dhulia, J.) held that the High Court erred in directing a CBI probe on the basis of vague and bald allegations unsupported by material. Reiterating the principles in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and following Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, the Court emphasized that constitutional courts possess power to direct CBI inquiries but must exercise that extraordinary jurisdiction sparingly and only where prima facie material warrants it. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, allowed the appeal and dismissed the contempt petition against CBI after accepting an unconditional apology; it limited its observations strictly to the question of directing CBI investigation.

Keywords: Section 482 CrPC; CBI investigation; vague and bald allegations; transfer of investigation; prima facie material.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal engages the narrow but constitutionally significant question whether a Constitutional Court should direct a federal investigation agency (CBI) to take over a criminal probe at the early/initial stage of investigation merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions that local police may be compromised. The FIR (dated 29.10.2022) accused the appellant of impersonation as an IG (IB) and of extorting ₹1,49,00,000 by coercing the complainant to transact with the appellant’s associates.

The complainant immediately (within months) invoked Section 482 CrPC before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBI, alleging acquaintance and collusion between local police officers and the accused. The Single Judge acceded to that prayer and ordered CBI investigation. The Supreme Court took up the matter by special leave and concentrated on the propriety of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to redirect inquiry from state police to the CBI. The background also includes an earlier FIR (FIR No.01/2022, Shimla) which the appellant got quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 10.01.2025, which had observed abuse of process and that some witnesses gave statements under Section 161 CrPC to settle business disputes. The Supreme Court carefully distinguished the two FIRs and queried the urgency and timing of the complainant’s approach to the High Court for a CBI probe while local investigation was in early stages. The Court underlined settled precedent that ordering CBI investigation is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised only when prima facie material indicates a reasonable basis to suspect local investigation would be compromised.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The operative facts, taken from the FIR and subsequent proceedings, may be summarized as follows. FIR No.215/2022 at Panchkula alleged impersonation by the appellant as an IG of Intelligence Bureau and threats to coerce transfer of ₹1,49,00,000 to the appellant’s account; the complainant was a pharmaceutical businessman. The FIR recited pressure to do business with appellant’s associates, notably Dr. Komal Khanna (co-accused). The complainant filed a Section 482 CrPC petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court in January 2023 seeking that the CBI take over the probe, alleging acquaintance between Haryana police officers and the appellant and suggesting possible police collusion. The High Court (Single Judge) ordered CBI investigation on 17.05.2024. The appellant challenged this directive in the Supreme Court.

Prior to the Panchkula FIR, an FIR was lodged at Shimla (CID-Bharari) on 06.01.2022 (FIR No.01/2022), which the appellant successfully had quashed by Himachal Pradesh High Court (10.01.2025) on grounds including registration on secret information and witness statements that appeared to settle business disputes. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant had known the appellant since 2019 and questioned why the complainant did not timely verify the appellant’s purported impersonation until October 2022. The Panchkula Commissioner had constituted a three-member SIT under the ACP, and yet the complainant pursued CBI involvement early in the local probe. The CBI nonetheless registered an FIR on 09.07.2024 despite an interim stay; CBI officials later apologized and returned case papers to Haryana police. The Supreme Court accepted the apology and disposed of the contempt petition arising from that act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a High Court in exercise of Section 482 CrPC may direct CBI investigation at the early stage of a probe on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against local police?

ii. What standard of prima facie material is required before a Constitutional Court exercises its extraordinary power to transfer investigation to a central agency?

iii. Whether allegations that local police officers are “acquainted” with the accused, without corroboration, justify displacement of local investigation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant contended that the Panchkula FIR and the earlier Shimla FIR were either unrelated or, in any event, the Shimla FIR (earlier) demonstrated abuse of process as it had been lodged on secret information and as a tool to settle business disputes; the Himachal High Court quashing strengthens the contention of malafide prosecution.

ii. The appellant argued that the complainant had an established business relationship with him since 2019, undermining the claim of surprise regarding impersonation; this raised an issue on veracity of allegations and the premature recourse to the High Court for CBI takeover.

iii. It was urged that mere bald assertions of police acquaintance or possible connivance without evidence cannot dislodge the statutory mandate for state investigation and that the extraordinary jurisdiction to order CBI probe must be sparingly exercised.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The complainant/respondent justified the High Court order on the ground that local police might be compromised, that the accused impersonated a central intelligence officer and that public interest and need for credibility warranted CBI involvement.

ii. Respondent maintained that the nature of allegations and the persons allegedly involved (associates, purported police contacts) raised reasonable apprehension about the impartiality and efficacy of local probe.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 482, CrPC — inherent powers of High Court to make orders necessary to secure ends of justice.
ii. Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC — offences alleged in FIR No.215/2022.
iii. Principles from State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 — constitutional courts’ power to direct CBI investigations but to be exercised sparingly.
iv. Guidance from Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 — caution against routine displacement of local investigation.

I) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s direction for CBI investigation. The Court emphasized that while Constitutional Courts are empowered to order CBI probes, that extraordinary power cannot be exercised as a matter of routine or on the basis of vague, unsubstantiated allegations. The Court examined the chronology and substance of the pleadings: the Panchkula FIR was lodged on 29.10.2022, the complainant approached the High Court for CBI involvement by January 2023 while investigation was still nascent, and allegations before the High Court included bald assertions that the appellant was seen masquerading as an IB officer and that he was seen with Haryana policemen.

The Supreme Court found these assertions unsubstantiated, particularly where the complainant admitted having known the appellant since 2019, and where the State had constituted a three-member SIT under the ACP for the probe. Relying on State of W.B. v. CPDR and Minor Irrigation, the Court reiterated that a High Court should direct CBI only where prima facie material shows a reasonable basis to doubt the independence or efficacy of local investigation, or where exceptional circumstances (national/international ramifications or necessity for doing complete justice) exist. Those parameters were not met here.

The Court also addressed consequential procedural irregularity: CBI registered an FIR on 09.07.2024 despite an interim stay by this Court; the CBI head tendered an unconditional apology and returned the papers. The Supreme Court accepted the apology and disposed of the contempt matter. The Court expressly limited its observations to the appropriateness of directing CBI investigation and cautioned that its observations should not impede fair and unbiased investigation by local police into FIR No.215/2022.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI 
The core ratio is that a High Court (or Supreme Court) may direct a CBI investigation under its constitutional/inherent powers, but that power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly — only where prima facie material indicates that local investigation would be compromised or where exceptional circumstances justify central agency involvement. Bald, vague, or unsubstantiated allegations of acquaintance or possible collusion are insufficient to transfer investigation.

b. OBITER DICTA
The Court observed (obiter) that CBI’s resources are limited and routine directives would burden the agency and undermine its effectiveness; also noted that allegations in the earlier Shimla FIR suggested possible abuse of process and that these factual complexities must be addressed in the course of a proper investigation rather than by premature centralization. Finally, the Court accepted CBI’s apology for registering an FIR despite stay, noting remedial steps including return of papers.

c. GUIDELINES
i. Exercise of CBI-transfer power must be based on prima facie material, not mere suspicion.
ii. Allegations of police acquaintance require corroboration before displacing local investigation.
iii. Constitutional courts must balance the need for credibility of probe against burdening central agency resources.
iv. Where state forms an SIT and preliminary steps have been initiated, courts should show restraint unless strong grounds exist.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms a measured doctrine: centralization of criminal investigation is an exceptional remedy. The judgment sensibly safeguards both the complainant’s right to a credible inquiry and the accused’s protection against undue pretrial centralization arising from speculative allegations. Practically, the ruling stresses the evidentiary threshold — even at the prima facie stage — required to justify CBI takeover: allegations must be specific, corroborated by material that reasonably suggests local bias or collusion or other exceptional features. For litigators, the case underscores the perils of rushing to constitutional courts for transfer orders at an incipient stage without adducing supporting material. For courts, it reiterates the need to hedge constitutional powers with prudence to preserve institutional integrity of investigative agencies. The limited acceptance of CBI’s apology also highlights procedural discipline: central agencies must respect interim judicial orders. Overall, the judgment is a measured articulation of restraint, consistency with precedent, and protection of prosecutorial and investigatory balance.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571. (As cited in judgment).

2. Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521. (As cited in judgment).

3. Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1744 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 02 Apr. 2025, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 497 : 2025 INSC 433.

Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss.120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506).

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482).