LexVINAY AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 497 : 2025 INSC 433 Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1744 of 2025) 02 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the Single Judge of the High Court directed that the investigation be handed over to CBI. Whether the order of the Single Judge of the High Court is sustainable. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The appellant was made an accused in an FIR No.215/2022 registered u/ss.120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC – The complainant then filed a petition u/s.482 of the CrPC and sought transfer of investigation from the civil police of the State of Haryana to the CBI – The said petition was allowed by the High Court – Sustainability: Held: Vague and bald allegations were made in the s.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 – It is settled 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 – In the instant case, 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 – After going through the records of the case, this Court is of the view that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High * Author 498 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Court – Hence, the order of the Single Judge of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. [Paras 5, 7, 8, 9, 10] Case Law Cited State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010] 2 SCR 979 : (2010) 3 SCC 571 – followed. Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Vague and bald allegations; CBI investigation; Civil Police of State; Routine manner; Local Police; Transfer of investigation; Handing over of case to CBI. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1744 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2024 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 2097 of 2023 With Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 772 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., Ms. Parul Shukla, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Dev Sareen, Saday Mondol, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Stuti Bisht, Nitesh Bhandari, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Aditya Goyal, Ujjawal Kumar Rai, Ms. Esha Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Utkarsh Chandra. Advs. for the Respondents: Sudhanshu S Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Vishal Malik, Karan Dewan, Miss Aanchal Jain, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Ms. Sabarni Som, Shikhar Narwal, Ritesh Kumar Gupta, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 499 Vinay Aggarwal v. The State of Haryana and Ors. Aman Dev Sharma, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Radhika Misra, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Navin Kumar, Rajat Nair, Mukesh Kumar Maroria. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Permission to file SLP granted. Leave granted. 2. The facts taken into account in this order are from Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8403/2024 by considering it to be the lead matter. The appellant before this Court was 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 bu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.