Introduction:

In the landmark case of Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana & Others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417], the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, addressed the critical issue of transferring investigations from local police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant, Vinay Aggarwal, faced charges of impersonating an Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer and extorting ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, referred to as Respondent No. 3. The complainant alleged collusion between Aggarwal and the Haryana police, prompting the Punjab & Haryana High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI. However, the Supreme Court set aside this decision, emphasizing that mere allegations without substantive evidence do not warrant such a transfer.

Arguments:

For the Petitioner (Vinay Aggarwal):

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing Aggarwal, argued that the High Court’s decision lacked a solid evidentiary foundation. He contended that the complainant’s claims of police collusion were based solely on Aggarwal’s acquaintance with certain officers, without any concrete proof of bias or incompetence. Furthermore, Alam highlighted that a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), was already conducting a thorough investigation, and no procedural lapses had been identified.

For the Respondent (Complainant):

Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, representing the complainant, maintained that the local police’s alleged familiarity with Aggarwal compromised the investigation’s integrity. He asserted that transferring the case to the CBI was essential to ensure an impartial inquiry, given the significant amount of money involved and the serious nature of the allegations. Chaudhari emphasized that the complainant’s concerns about potential bias warranted the High Court’s intervention.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, underscored the necessity of exercising caution when considering the transfer of investigations to the CBI. Relying on the precedent set in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], the Court reiterated that such transfers should occur only in exceptional circumstances, such as cases with national or international ramifications or where fundamental rights are at stake.

The bench observed that the High Court’s decision was predicated on vague allegations without substantive evidence. The complainant’s claims of police collusion were primarily based on Aggarwal’s acquaintance with certain officers, lacking any concrete proof of bias or incompetence. The Court noted that the SIT, under the ACP’s supervision, was actively investigating the case, and there were no indications of procedural lapses or partiality.

Justice Dhulia, authoring the judgment, emphasized that courts should refrain from ordering CBI investigations based on unsubstantiated claims. He stated, “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 based on some vague allegations.” The Court concluded that the present case did not meet the criteria for such a transfer and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order.