The Supreme Court has overturned an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had transferred an investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that such transfers should not be made as a matter of routine.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran emphasized that high courts should direct CBI investigations only when prima facie material justifies such a move.

“CBI investigations should be ordered only where there is concrete material indicating the need for such an inquiry,” the bench noted. “Vague or unsubstantiated allegations are not sufficient grounds to bring the CBI into action.”

The apex court's remarks came while allowing an appeal challenging the high court's May 2024 decision, which had transferred a criminal probe from the state police to the CBI.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered in Panchkula in October 2022, wherein the accused allegedly impersonated an Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Bureau and coerced the complainant—a pharmaceutical businessman—into transferring ₹1.49 crore. The complainant also claimed he was pressured into associating with the accused’s network under threat and extortion.

Seeking a transfer of the investigation from the local police to the CBI, the complainant approached the high court, which allowed the plea. This decision was then challenged by the accused in the Supreme Court.

In its April 2 judgment, the apex court criticized the reasoning adopted by the high court, noting that the complainant’s petition contained only "vague and bald" allegations. The primary claim was that the state police officials were familiar with the accused and might be complicit—an assertion that was not supported by any evidence.

The bench also noted that the high court seemed swayed by the complainant's suggestion that local officers were of lower rank and that senior officials might be involved. However, the Supreme Court held that these allegations were speculative. It also pointed out that a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, had already been constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula.

Referring to established legal precedent, the Supreme Court reiterated that CBI inquiries should not be ordered merely because accusations are made against local police.

Setting aside the high court’s directive, the bench concluded that there was no compelling reason to involve the CBI in this case