New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which transferred the probe in a case to the CBI, and said such directions should not be routinely passed.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said the high courts should direct for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe only in cases where the material prima facie warranted an investigation by the agency.
“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,” it added.
The top court went on, “The ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.”
The apex court’s verdict came on an appeal challenging the high court’s May 2024 order.
The bench said an FIR was lodged in Panchkula in October 2022 alleging the accused impersonated an inspector general (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau and threatened the complainant to transfer Rs 1.49 crore into his account.
The FIR alleged that the complainant, who had a pharmaceutical business, was coerced by the accused to work with his associates and faced extortion for money.
The complainant moved the high court seeking the transfer of probe from the state police to the CBI.
The high court allowed the plea following which the accused moved the apex court.
In its April 2 verdict, the apex court said “vague and bald” allegations were made in the petition filed before the high court.
The main ground, it said, the complainant alleged in the high court was the police officials were acquainted with the appellant and they could also be involved in the case.
The bench said these claims of the complainant were not substantiated at all.
It referred to a top court judgement to say CBI investigation should not be directed in a routine manner or only because allegations were against the local police.
The bench said the high court was perhaps moved by the assertions made by the complainant that local police officers, who would conduct the probe, were of lesser ranks and that the matter allegedly involved some high ranking officials.
These allegations were vague and moreover, the commissioner, Panchkula, had constituted a three-member special investigation team under the chairmanship of an assistant commissioner of police for investigation, the court noted.
While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court order.
