The Bench noted that CBI should not be called in just because someone blames the local police without giving any solid proof
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India accepted an unconditional apology from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for violating a stay order in a criminal case involving a man who allegedly pretended to be an Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer to extort money.
ALSO READ: CBI to Probe Lawyers’ Bribery Demand for Favourable NCLT Order
The Supreme Court had passed a stay order in June 2024, stopping any further action by the CBI in this matter. However, the CBI mistakenly filed a First Information Report (FIR) in July 2024, going against the Court’s directive. This led the accused person to file a contempt petition against the CBI for disobeying the court’s order.
CBI officer Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar (IPS), head of a Special Crime Branch, appeared before a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran. He explained that the FIR was filed by mistake because the CBI was unaware of the Supreme Court’s stay order at the time.
He further assured the Court that once they got to know about the stay, they immediately took remedial steps like returning all case files to the local police.
The Supreme Court appreciated this action and decided to close the contempt proceedings.
The Bench stated:
“We accept the unconditional apology of Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar and do not wish to proceed any further in the contempt petition.”
In the same judgment, the Supreme Court also gave strong remarks about courts routinely transferring criminal investigations to the CBI. The Bench noted that CBI should not be called in just because someone blames the local police without giving any solid proof.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Directs CBI to Move Delhi High Court in Coal Scam Case
The Court said:
“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 matter began with a criminal complaint filed in October 2022 in Panchkula, Haryana. A businessman alleged that another man, posing as an IB officer, cheated him out of ₹1.49 crore. He also claimed the accused was seen with Haryana police officers and suspected that police personnel might be involved in the crime.
Due to this suspicion, the complainant filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a CBI investigation into the matter. The High Court allowed this request in 2024 and transferred the case to the CBI.
However, the accused person challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court. After reviewing the facts, the top court found that the High Court acted in haste and should not have handed the case over to the CBI at such an early stage of investigation.
The Supreme Court observed:
“The 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.”
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the probe to the Haryana police.
ALSO READ: [Delhi Excise Policy Case] “Submit the List of Documents”: Court Directs CBI
The appellant (accused) was represented by Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, along with Advocates Parul Shukla, Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol, Naveen Kumar, Stuti Bisht, Nitesh Bhandari, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Aditya Goyal, Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Esha Kumar, Nidhi Singh, and Utkarsh Chandra.
The respondents (State and complainant) were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Advocate General Alok Sangwan, and Advocates Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Sabarni Som, Shikhar Narwal, Aman Dev Sharma, Amit Ojha, Keshav Mittal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shreya Jain, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Navin Kumar, Rajat Nair, Aanchal Jain, and Karan Dewan.
Case Title: Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
View Order
