Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Directing CBI Probe; Emphasises CBI Directions Must Be Sparingly Used

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had directed transfer of investigation in an extortion and impersonation case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appeal challenged the Single Judge’s order dated 17.05.2024 handing over the probe arising from FIR No.215/2022 (P.S. Sector 20, Panchkula) to the CBI.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s direction for CBI investigation, holding that the extraordinary power to order a CBI probe must be exercised “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.” The Bench observed that the material on record did not prima facie disclose circumstances warranting CBI intervention at the initial stage and that vague and bald allegations against local police were insufficient to invoke central agency jurisdiction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The Court further noted that “the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.”

Background The dispute arose from FIR No.215/2022 registered on 29.10.2022 at P.S. Sector 20, Panchkula, alleging that the appellant impersonated himself as an Inspector General of the Intelligence Bureau and coerced the complainant (Jagbir Singh) — a pharmaceutical businessman — to transfer Rs. 1,49,00,000 and to deal with associates including Dr. Komal Khanna. The complainant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI; the Single Judge allowed the petition on 17.05.2024.

The appellant pointed to an earlier FIR (FIR No.01/2022 at P.S. CID-Bharari, Shimla) registered on 06.01.2022 on related allegations, which the Himachal Pradesh High Court later quashed on 10.01.2025 as an abuse of process and on findings that witnesses’ statements were civil in nature and aimed at settling business disputes. The Supreme Court reviewed both FIRs and the record of the Section 482 petition, observed that some allegations before the High Court were vague and unsubstantiated, and noted that a local Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Assistant Commissioner of Police had already been constituted. Applying this Court’s precedent in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Bench held that the parameters for directing a CBI probe were not met in the present case and that the High Court ought not to have directed CBI investigation at the initial stage.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order dated 17.05.2024 and allowed the appeal. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the question of directing CBI investigation and must not affect the ongoing police investigation into FIR No.215/2022, which was to proceed in a fair and just manner.

The Court also disposed of Contempt Petition (C) No.772/2024 arising from registration of an FIR by the CBI on 09.07.2024 despite an interim stay of the High Court’s order; Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, IPS, Head of Branch, Special Crime Branch (CBI), tendered an unconditional apology, stating the FIR had been registered “by mistake” as CBI personnel were not made aware of this Court’s interim order. The apology was accepted, remedial steps were noted, the contempt notices were discharged and the contempt petition was disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8403 OF 2024; 2025 INSC 433 Case Title: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment