Transfer of probe only in exceptional cases, rules high court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the power to transfer an investigation from one agency to another is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised only in rare and compelling circumstances where gross illegality, bias, or manifest injustice is evident. The court said mere dissatisfaction with the progress of an investigation or a perception of unfairness does not justify judicial interference.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul held that courts must exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC, with restraint and only in cases where it was conclusively established that the investigation was not being conducted in a fair, impartial, and independent manner. "The investigating agency is under a statutory duty to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, and judicial intervention should be warranted only where there is clear and cogent evidence that the probe is tainted with malafides or arbitrariness," the court said.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the high court reiterated that a routine transfer of investigations based merely on allegations of dissatisfaction would set an undesirable precedent and undermine the autonomy of investigating agencies.

The ruling came in a case where the complainant filed a plea seeking the transfer of investigation in FIR dated May 21, 2020, for cheating and other offences under Sections 406, 420, 384, 120-B, IPC, registered at Dabua police station in Faridabad district from the agency probing the matter to an independent agency.

Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Kaul observed the petitioner’s primary grievance was that the investigation was proceeding at an unreasonably slow pace and lacked transparency.

Justice Kaul asserted the petitioner had failed to provide substantial or prima facie evidence to demonstrate that the investigation was being conducted contrary to principles of fair play and justice. The court found no material on record to suggest that the investigating officer was acting in a manner warranting intervention. The court also clarified that appropriate legal remedies were available if the petitioner remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of the investigation. But valid grounds were not made out to justify judicial interference, leading to the dismissal of the petition.