In Online Dental Tourism Fraud Case, Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea to Transfer Probe to CBI

“Accused Cannot Choose the Investigating Agency — CBI Transfers Are Not a Right”, Punjab & Haryana High Court in a detailed judgment by Justice Manisha Batra declined a plea seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI in a high-profile medical tourism fraud case. The Court held that there was no exceptional or rare circumstance justifying a change in the investigating agency, particularly when the chargesheet had already been filed and the petitioner's implication was supported by material on record. 

“No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. An accused has no right to demand investigation by the CBI merely because she questions the fairness of local police,” observed the Court, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP-10536-2021) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 

Kenyan National Alleges Fraudulent Dental Tourism Package in Chandigarh 

The case arose from an FIR (No. 0075 dated 21.09.2020) registered under Sections 419, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, based on a complaint by a Kenyan national, Enid Nayabunbdi. She had approached Advanced Dental Clinic, Chandigarh, through a portal called www.whatclinic.com, where she was allegedly offered a comprehensive dental tourism package — including treatment, accommodation, and airfare — by Dr. Mohit Dhawan, the husband of the petitioner. 

The complainant alleged that the treatment was substandard, the dentures ill-fitting, and the promised amenities not provided. The petitioner was later named in the case for allegedly impersonating someone named "Aarti" through emails and luring the complainant into accepting the offer. 

She sought transfer of investigation to the CBI, alleging mala fide action by the Chandigarh police due to prior disputes involving her husband and unnamed senior police officers. 

 “CBI Probe Is Not a Remedy for Every Grievance Against Police” 

The Court dismissed the assertion that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to her husband's strained relations with police, stating: 

“Neither the names of police officials allegedly nursing a grudge nor the specifics of such animosity have been placed on record. Mere suspicion is no basis for assuming bias in investigation.” 

The Court emphasized that even though constitutional courts can direct CBI investigations after chargesheet is filed, such orders are reserved for rare and exceptional situations, typically where the case involves inter-state implications, national interest, or gross failure of justice. 

“This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly… Not because a party expresses dissatisfaction with local police, but because the investigation is demonstrably biased, tainted or inadequate.” 

On the Petitioner’s Role: “Prima Facie Material Suggests Involvement — Not Innocence” 

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that she had no connection with the clinic or the complainant, the Court pointed out that recorded evidence prima facie indicated that she was the proprietor of the clinic, had corresponded under a pseudonym to the victim, and had previously been convicted in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act where she was recognized as the clinic’s owner. 

“At this stage, it cannot be stated that she had no concern with the said clinic or no hand in inducing the complainant,” noted the Court, finding no basis for her assertion that she was framed. 

CBI Transfer Doctrine Reiterated: “Power Exists, But Must Be Invoked With Extreme Caution” 

The judgment thoroughly discussed precedents from State of West Bengal v. CPDR [(2010) 3 SCC 571], Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200], K.V. Rajendran and Vinay Tyagi, underscoring that a CBI probe may be directed only: 

“Where the unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the Court… The principle of rarest of rare cases would squarely apply.” 

The Court was careful to highlight that while it possesses constitutional power to direct a CBI probe even post-chargesheet, no cogent justification was presented by the petitioner to invoke such a measure. 

“There is no demonstrable failure of justice, no proven undue influence, and no case for constitutional interference with an ongoing, completed investigation.” 

Petition and Application for Impleading CBI Dismissed 

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no ground existed for judicial intervention in the completed investigation. Consequently, the application to implead the CBI as a respondent was also dismissed as infructuous. 

“No case is made out warranting interference by this Court… Investigation by local police cannot be termed tainted or biased on the vague allegations made.” 

Discontent Is Not Enough — CBI Transfers Require Judicial Conscience to Be Shocked 

This decision serves as a reaffirmation that constitutional courts are not to be drawn into investigating officer disputes without clear evidence of injustice. The High Court has drawn a firm boundary around the misuse of its CBI transfer jurisdiction. 

“If Courts were to entertain every such plea, the CBI would be flooded with routine matters — and in the process, its own credibility and capacity would suffer,” Justice Manisha Batra rightly cautioned. 

Date of Decision: June 3, 2025