269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 MANDEEP KAUR …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 6. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of investigation in the case bearing FIR No. 111 dated 21.07.2022 registered under Sections 406, 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-2) from the local police to CBI i.e. respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing the present petition are that husband of the petitioner has joined respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company Ltd. in the year 2013 and thereafter he was posted at branch Mukeriana on 01.01.2014. Thereafter, on 03.05.2019 he was transferred from Mukerian to Jalandhar. The duty of the husband of the petitioner was to process the claims. In the year 2017, respondent No.6, Som Raj, also joined as Assistant Branch Manager at Mukerian. The husband of the petitioner and respondent No.6 were dealing in two wheeler claims. The claim was submitted by the Dealer or owner of the vehicle which was verified by the Surveyor along with the report and relevant documents. The file was AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -2- received by respondent No.6 and thereafter sent to Branch Manager. The duty of the husband of the petitioner was to verify the documents particularly with regard to survey report Photos, driving license etc.. Thereafter same was sent to Assistant Manager for processing. Even Code Numbers were also allotted to the employees to submit/process the claims. Some times the payment was made to the customers by the official of the company and thereafter the said amount was claimed from the company by the officials and was credited in the accounts given by the concerned employees. Thereafter, respondent No.6 was getting the money from the company in the account of the petitioner and thereafter, after withdrawing the amount, the same was given to respondent No.6. Even respondent No.6 has issued receipts in the name of the petitioner regarding the amount received by him. When the husband of the petitioner was transferred from Mukerian to Jalandhar then he told respondent No.6 to provide any other account to the company for the payment. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner told respondent No.6 that he has been transferred and now he has to make his own arrangements for receiving of amount. Thereafter, in March 2020 a false complaint was made and petitioner was called by the police and appeared before the police and satisfied the police officials that nothing wrong has done by the petitioner nor she has received any amount. But in spite of the same an FIR(supra) has been registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur in which the petitioner has also been nominated as an accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the Investigating Agency has conducted the investigation in a manner, which is alien to the procedure prescribed in the relevant statute. Further, the investigation has been carried out in a total tainted and unfair manner and AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -3- great prejudice has been caused to the husband of the petitioner, as the Investigating Officer has failed to conclude the investigation correctly and it is further clear from the record that till date neither any complaint has been made by any customer or dealer nor any material is available on record to prove the claim of the company that any payment has been credited in account of the petitioner is bogus or fake and this fact itself shows that police has not investigated the matter in a transparent and fair manner and it is apparent from the bare perusal of the FIR that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present petition only for the reason that she is wife of Mandeep Singh, who was working with the company. Petitioner is neither employee of the company nor has any concern with the affairs of the company in any manner. Furthermore, no role or any act has been attributed to the petitioner and petitioner has never used his bank account. In fact, the same has been used by her husband and officials of the company, but later on, the petitioner was involved in the FIR(supra). Further, the Investigating Officer has failed to consider that the petitioner is not be beneficiary of any of the claims with regard to claim made to Insurance Company. Even, the petitioner is not aware about the transactions that took place in her account and her account was being used by her husband and respondent No. 6 and if the husband of the petitioner has made any false claim, then petitioner cannot be held liable. The Investigating Officer has not got the comparison of signatures of Som Raj done. Further, respondent No. 6 has not denied the signatures on the receipts and the main accused is Som Raj, who has orchestrated the entire fraud. The Investigating Officer, in a biased manner, has not nominated him as one of the accused as he is close relative of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, posted at AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -4- Mukerian. Further, necessary material and facts have not been taken into consideration, which are as follows: (i) The files against which amount has been claimed has not been recovered till date by the local police. (ii) It has not been inquired from whose code the claim files have been submitted. (iii) No customer or dealer has been joined to make out a case that either they have not received any payment nor they were having any claim. (iv) Record of the insurance company has not been taken into possession by the police. (v) Till date it has not been found that the claims/bills claimed from the company were bogus or fake nor this fact has been inquired. (vi) Further assets and role of respondent No.6 has not been inquired by the local police. (vii) The signatures of Som Raj respondent No.6 on the receipt issued to the petitioner has not been got compared till date. (viii) Furthermore, the fact of practice of making payment to the customers and claiming thereafter the company by its employees is there in the office or in the other offices of the company. (ix) Husband of the petitioner was transferred from Mukerian in the year 2019 and the amount was got credited in the account of the petitioner even after 2019 against the bill submitted from Mukerian branch and this fact has not been enquired who has submitted the claims and from whose code files were submitted and who credited the amount in the account of the petitioner. (x) The version of the petitioner and her husband has neither been considered nor taken into account while taking action in the present case. (xi) The amount was being credited in the account of the petitioner from Delhi by DOX not by the husband of the petitioner, and officer at Delhi never raised any question or AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -5- objection to the fact why the amount of so many claims is being continuously credited in one account. This fact shows that nothing wrong has been done in the present case. If this was wrong then this fact at the level of head office be also inquired by the independent agency who has transferred the amount in the account of the petitioner of so many claims continuously for many years. 4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 197 and Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Anita Agarwal and Others 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 277, in support of her contentions and submits that it is a fit case for handing over the investigation of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that present petition is totally misconceived and probable defence of the petitioner set up in the present petition is a matter of trial and can only be appreciated by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it and the Investigating Agency has conducted the investigation in a fair and transparent manner and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the learned jurisdictional Court and the matter is now pending trial. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as mere dissatisfaction or apprehension of bias cannot be said to be a ground for handing over the investigation of a case to Central Bureau of Investigation. and investigation of the case cannot be handed over to Central Bureau in a casual manner. Further, the disputed question of facts can be determined only AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -6- on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The probable defence set up by the petitioner, in the present petition, cannot be appreciated at this stage. 7. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently examined this issue in Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 704 and speaking through Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, made the following observations: - “9. 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. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion [See : Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521]. After going through the records of the case, we are of the view that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court.” 8. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others (2010) 3 SCC 571 speaking through Justice D.K. Jain, has held as under:- “46. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court cannot examine the probable defence of the petitioner set up in the present petition and scuttle the AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41390-2022 (O&M) -7- proceedings before the trial Court. It is well settled that the mere dissatisfaction or apprehension of bias on the part of the investigating agency, without credible and cogent material to support such apprehension, cannot be a ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI. 11. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed being bereft of any merit. 12. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 26.05.2025 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.28 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document