Vinay Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana

2025 INSC 433 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________ OF 2025 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8403 OF 2024]

VINAY AGGARWAL …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 772/2024 IN SLP(Crl) No. 8403/2024

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)._______________OF 2025 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). OF 2025] Diary No(s). 33284/2024

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted.

2. Signature Not Verified The facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal Digitally signed by

Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.02 18:42:11 IST Reason:

it to be the lead matter. The appellant before this Court was

Page 1 of 10 made an accused in an FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector 20,

Panchkula (Haryana) under Section 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467,

468, 471, 506 of IPC. This FIR has been lodged on the basis of

information given by complainant-respondent no.3 (Jagbir

Singh) where it has been alleged that the appellant

impersonated himself as an Inspector General (IG) of

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 including one Dr.

Komal Khanna (co-accused and appellant in criminal appeal

arising out of Diary No.33284/2024) and money was extorted

from the complainant’s firms by putting undue pressure on

the complainant.

3. The FIR itself was filed on 29.10.2022. The complainant then

filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code (‘CrPC’) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court

seeking transfer of investigation from the civil police of the

State of Haryana to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for

short ‘CBI’). This petition (under Section 482 CrPC) filed by

Page 2 of 10 respondent no.3, has been allowed by the High Court vide

impugned order dated 17.05.2024 where the learned Single

Judge directed that the investigation in the case be handed

over to CBI. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant who is the

main accused in the FIR is before us.

4. Prior to the registration of the abovementioned FIR, on

06.01.2022, an earlier FIR being FIR No.01/2022 at P.S CID-

Bharari, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) was filed against

appellant, which, the appellant alleges, was on the same issue

and though the name of the present complainant is not there

in the earlier FIR as complainant but, according to the present

appellant, that too was initiated at the behest of the present

complainant. The appellant argued that this FIR in Himachal

Pradesh is on similar allegations alleging that the appellant,

by impersonating himself as an IG (IB), had extorted lacs of

rupees from industrialists including the complainant

/respondent no.3. For the quashing of this FIR (No.01/2022),

the appellant had filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC

before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Himachal

Pradesh High Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 has quashed

FIR No.01/2022 against the appellant. In this order dated

Page 3 of 10 10.01.2025, Himachal Pradesh High Court had observed that

the FIR in Shimla was registered on the basis of some secret

information and the High Court further made observations

that the witnesses had made statements before police under

Section 161 CrPC in order to settle some disputes with the

appellant, which are only civil in nature. Consequently,

Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR since the filing

of the FIR itself seemed to be an abuse of the process of law.

5. We have gone through both the FIRs. We may not agree with

the contentions of the appellant that the two FIRs, the one

which has already been quashed and the second in which the

investigation has now been handed over to the CBI vide the

impugned order, are broadly similar in nature. They relate to

different incidents and may have a different cause of action

though some incidents narrated in one do relate to the other,

but what is difficult for us to comprehend is that when the

present FIR itself was filed on 22.10.2022 and the

investigation itself was in its initial stage, then what was the

burning hurry for the complainant to approach the High Court

under Section 482 CrPC as early as January 2023 seeking an

investigation by CBI instead of local police. Vague and bald

Page 4 of 10 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, etc.

The main ground taken by the complainant before the High

Court was that the police officials are acquainted with the

appellant and those officers may also be involved in the

present case. These claims of the complainant are not

substantiated at all. Also, we may note that, in the same

petition, the complainant had admitted that he knew the

appellant since 2019 as they were doing business together and

even if we assume that the appellant was impersonating

himself as an IPS officer, it is difficult to believe that

complainant was not able to find out the truth till October

2022. 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.

6. While quashing the earlier FIR against the appellant, the

Himachal Pradesh High Court had also observed that the

complainant and other witnesses have used the FIR

(No.01/2022) as a weapon to settle down the business

Page 5 of 10 disputes with the appellant. The appellant also contends that

the money shown to be transferred in his account from the

account of complainant’s firms is the money which was taken

by complainant as a loan. However, we are not expressing any

views on the merits of the case as all these aspects have to be

seen during the investigation.

7. We are only on the issue of handing over the investigation to

the CBI. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of

Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Five-Judge Bench

of this Court held that Constitutional Courts are fully

empowered to direct for CBI investigation, and restrictions

under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not

apply to Constitutional Courts. However, this Court had also

observed that CBI investigation should not be directed in a

routine manner or just because some allegations have been

made against the local police. Courts should direct for CBI

investigation only in exceptional cases. This is what was said

by this Court:

“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

Page 6 of 10 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.”

8. The parameters laid down by this Court in Committee for

Protection of Democratic Rights (Supra) are not fulfilled in

the present case so as to exercise the extraordinary powers of

directing CBI investigation. Moreover, in our opinion, High

Court was perhaps moved by the assertions made by the

complainant that local police officers who will do the

investigation are of lesser ranks and that the matter involves

some high ranking officials and thus, local police will not be

able to investigate the matter properly. However, these

allegations are vague and moreover, the Commissioner,

Panchkula had constituted a three-member Special

Investigation Team (SIT) under the Chairmanship of the

Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for the investigation.

One should also take note that the allegations are not against

Page 7 of 10 some high ranking IPS officer but against a person who was

allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS officer! 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.

9. 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 [See: Minor

Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram

Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521]. After going through the records of

the case, we are of the view that the present case is not the

one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by

the High Court.

10. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court

dated 17.05.2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Page 8 of 10

11. In light of the order in the main matter, the criminal appeal

arising out of Diary No. 33284 of 2024 also stands disposed

of.

12. While issuing notice in the present matter, this Court had

passed an interim order dated 27.06.2024 staying the

impugned order dated 17.05.2024. However, despite that, an

FIR was registered on 09.07.2024 by CBI and the same has

led to filing of a contempt case [Contempt Petition (C) No.772

of 2024] against CBI officials by the co-accused (Dr. Komal

Khanna). In this contempt petition, Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar,

IPS, Head of Branch, Special Crime Branch (CBI) had

appeared before this Court and had given an unconditional

apology for registration of FIR despite the stay order of this

Court. In his affidavit, he has deposed that FIR dated

09.07.2024 was registered by mistake since CBI was not made

aware of this Court’s interim order. He has further deposed

that once CBI got to know about this Court’s order, all

remedial steps were taken in the matter including the return

of case papers to Haryana police. We accept the unconditional

apology of Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar and do not wish to proceed

any further in the contempt petition. Consequently, the

Page 9 of 10 notices given in the above Contempt Petition (C) No.772 of

2024 are hereby discharged and the Contempt Petition stands

disposed of in the above terms.

13. Before parting, we would also like to note that observations

made by this Court in the present order are only limited to the

issue of directing CBI investigation and these observations

must not affect the investigation in any way which has to be

done by the police in relation to FIR No.215/2022 at P.S Sector

20, Panchkula (Haryana) in a fair and just manner.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

.......……….…………………….J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

..….....………………………….J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI, April 2, 2025.

Page 10 of 10