Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had transferred the investigation of an FIR (impersonation of an IB officer and extortion) from the Haryana police to the CBI at the behest of the complainant, holding that the vague and unsubstantiated allegations against the local police did not meet the exceptional-case threshold for directing a CBI investigation.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified, in a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the complainant at the initial stage of the investigation, in transferring the investigation of the FIR to the CBI.
- Whether the contempt petition against CBI officials for registering an FIR despite the Supreme Court's interim stay should be proceeded with.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The complainant invoked the High Court's inherent power to seek a CBI investigation within months of the FIR. The Court held the High Court ought to have been slow to interfere: the petition contained only vague and bald allegations that local police were acquainted with the accused, an SIT had already been constituted, and the case did not warrant handing over to the CBI at the initial stage. (¶¶ 3, 5, 8, 9, 10)
- Sections 120B, 177, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, Penal Code, 1860Offences alleged in the FIR (impersonation as an IG of the Intelligence Bureau, threats and extortion of money from the complainant's firms). The Court expressed no view on the merits, leaving all such aspects to the investigation. (¶¶ 2, 6, 13)
Held
- Constitutional Courts have the power to direct a CBI investigation, and the restrictions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not bind them, but following the Constitution Bench in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights that power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations, not as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled allegations against the local police. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- A High Court should direct a CBI investigation only where the material prima facie discloses something calling for it; vague allegations, and 'ifs' and 'buts' without any definite conclusion, are not sufficient to set the CBI in motion. (¶ 9)
- On the facts, the parameters for a CBI investigation were not met: the complainant approached the High Court while the investigation was at its initial stage, his claims that local police officers were acquainted with or in connivance with the accused were unsubstantiated, a three-member SIT headed by an ACP had already been constituted, and the allegation concerned a person impersonating an IPS officer rather than any high-ranking officer. The High Court ought to have been slow to interfere and its order transferring the investigation could not be sustained. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 10)
- The Court declined to express any view on the merits, including the appellant's contention that the transferred money was a loan and the Himachal Pradesh High Court's observations while quashing an earlier FIR; those matters are for the investigation, which must proceed fairly and without being affected by the observations in this order. (¶¶ 6, 13)
- Where the CBI registered an FIR despite the Supreme Court's interim stay but the head of the branch tendered an unconditional apology, explaining that the CBI had not been informed of the stay and had returned the papers to the State police once it learnt of it, the Court accepted the apology and did not proceed further in contempt. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order dated 17.05.2024 transferring the investigation to the CBI set aside; the investigation into FIR No. 215/2022 to proceed with the Haryana police fairly and unaffected by these observations; contempt petition disposed of on acceptance of the unconditional apology, with notices discharged; pending applications disposed of.