Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed transfer of investigation from local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an FIR involving allegations of impersonation as an Intelligence Bureau officer and extortion. The appellant was accused in FIR No.215/2022 registered at P.S Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506. The complainant alleged that the appellant impersonated as an Inspector General of IB and coerced him to transfer Rs.1,49,00,000 into the appellant's account while pressuring him to do business with associates. The complainant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking CBI investigation, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 17.05.2024. The appellant contended that an earlier FIR in Himachal Pradesh on similar allegations had been quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 10.01.2025 as an abuse of process to settle civil disputes. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in directing CBI investigation. The appellant argued that the two FIRs were broadly similar and the complainant's haste to seek CBI investigation in January 2023, shortly after FIR registration in October 2022, was unwarranted. The Court noted that the complainant's allegations about police connivance were vague and unsubstantiated, and that a Special Investigation Team had already been constituted by local authorities. The Court referred to the precedent in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, which established that Constitutional Courts can direct CBI investigation but should do so only in exceptional cases, not routinely. The Court analyzed that the parameters for exercising this extraordinary power were not fulfilled in the present case, as there was no material prima facie disclosing need for CBI investigation, only vague allegations. The Court held that the High Court should have been slow to interfere at the initial investigation stage and that the order directing CBI investigation could not be sustained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed that investigation continue with local police. The Court also disposed of a related criminal appeal and a contempt petition regarding CBI's registration of an FIR despite a stay order, accepting an unconditional apology from CBI officials.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation Transfer - CBI Investigation Direction - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - High Court directed CBI investigation based on vague allegations against local police - Supreme Court held that CBI investigation should not be directed routinely or merely because allegations are made against local police, but only in exceptional cases where material prima facie discloses need for CBI investigation - High Court order set aside as parameters for extraordinary power not fulfilled (Paras 7-9). B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of Process - FIR Quashing - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed earlier FIR against appellant finding it was abuse of process to settle civil disputes - Supreme Court noted observations but did not express views on merits of present FIR, only on CBI transfer issue - Investigation to continue with local police in fair manner (Paras 4, 6, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing transfer of investigation from local police to CBI under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order of learned Single Judge of High Court dated 17.05.2024 set aside. Investigation to continue with local police. Criminal appeal arising out of Diary No.33284/2024 disposed of. Contempt Petition (C) No.772/2024 disposed of with acceptance of unconditional apology.
Law Points
- CBI investigation should not be directed routinely
- Constitutional Courts have power to direct CBI investigation but must exercise it sparingly in exceptional cases
- vague allegations against local police insufficient for CBI transfer
- High Court should be slow to interfere at initial investigation stage
