Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision transferring the investigation to CBI of the matter wherein, the present accused was alleged of impersonating as a high-ranking police official, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision, viewing that the present case was not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court.
Background
A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged by complaint- respondent 3, alleging that the present accused impersonated himself as an Inspector General (IG) of Intelligence Bureau (IB) and threatened the complainant to transfer Rs.1,49,00,000 into his account. The complainant, who is in the business of pharmaceuticals, was coerced by the present accused to do business with his associates and friends including one Doctor, who is co-accused and appellant in criminal appeal arising out of Diary No.33284/2024) and money was extorted from the complainant’s firms by putting undue pressure him.
The complainant’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was allowed by the High Court directing for the investigation to be transferred to CBI.
In another FIR against the present accused, it was alleged that he impersonated himself as IG (IB), and extorted lakhs of rupees from industrialists including the complainant. For the quashing of this FIR, a petition under Section 482 of CrPC was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and the same was quashed.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court disagreed with accused person’s contention that the two FIRs are broadly similar in nature. The Court said that they both related to different incidents and may have a different cause of action. Vague and bald allegations were made in the Section 482 CrPC petition such as that the accused was seen masquerading as an IB officer, and he was seen in the company of policemen of Haryana, etc.
However, the Court noted that the complainant knew the accused since 2019 as they were doing business together and even if it was assumed that he was impersonating himself as an IPS officer, it was difficult to believe that the complainant was not able to find out the truth till October 2022. Thus, the Court viewed, the High Court ought to have been slow in interfering in this matter as this was not a case which should have been handed over to the CBI at the initial stage itself.
Regarding the impugned decision of handing over the investigation to the CBI, the Court relied on State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, whereby, the Five-Judge Bench held 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.
Applying the abovementioned dictum on the matter at hand, the Court pointed out that those parameters were not fulfilled in the present case so as to exercise the extraordinary powers of directing CBI investigation. Moreover, 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, the Court termed these allegations as vague, as the Commissioner, Panchkula had constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for the investigation.
One should also take note that the allegations are not against some high ranking IPS officer but against a person who was allegedly impersonating himself as an IPS officer! The complainant has raised some allegations that high-ranking police officials of Haryana Police are in connivance with the accused, but such bald allegations were not sufficient to handover the case to CBI, without any kind of substantiation.
Hence, allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned decision. The Court clarified that the observations must not affect the investigation in any way which has to be done by the police in relation to FIR in a fair and just manner.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
