High Courts Shouldn't Order CBI Investigation In A Routine Manner Or On Basis Of Vague Allegations: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that mere bald allegations against the incompetence of the local police to investigate the case without any kind of substantiation would not justify the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”).

Relying on the constitution bench decision of State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision which had transferred the investigation from local police to CBI based on bald allegations of the complainant that the local police was incompetent to investigate the case.

In the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the court ruled that the power to transfer of investigation to the CBI should not be exercised in the routine course, but in exceptional circumstances “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.”

“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.”, the court added.

In the present, an FIR was registered against the appellant for impersonating an IB officer and extorting ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, respondent no. 3.

The complainant sought a transfer of investigation to the CBI, alleging collusion between the appellant and Haryana police. The High Court allowed this transfer.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia noted the High Court's decision to transfer investigation to CBI was based on vague allegations (appellant's acquaintance with police) without substantiated evidence.

The Court found that the investigation into the case was underway by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and there was no evidence suggested by the complainant that the local police were incapable or biased.

“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.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: VINAY AGGARWAL Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dev Sareen, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Stuti Bisht, Adv. Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Esha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Chandra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Malik, Adv. Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Radhika Misra, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR