CRM-M/39770/2026 of PAWAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 21 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking issuance of appropriate directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to decide the representation dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) allegedly submitted by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 7 to 11, and to take appropriate action in respect of the alleged fraud stated to have been committed against the petitioner.

2. A perusal of the representation annexed with the petition reveals that it is primarily addressed to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically called upon to satisfy the Court regarding the maintainability of the present petition under

-:2:- Section 528 of the BNSS. In support of his contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others, 2025 INSC 818, wherein it was held that the mere pendency of civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings.

2.1. However, the aforesaid judgment is wholly distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the petitioner. The present petition neither seeks quashing of any criminal proceedings nor relates to any representation submitted before the police authorities. Rather, the representation in question has been addressed to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, with copies marked to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat; District Revenue Officer, Sonipat; Senior Town Planner, Rohtak; Land Acquisition Officer, Sonipat; District Town Planner, Sonipat; and Project Manager, Sonipat. Despite this, the petitioner seeks directions against respondent Nos. 1 to 6, namely, the State of Haryana, Director General of Police, Haryana, Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, Station House Officer, Police Station Rai, and Incharge, Economic Offences Cell, Sonipat, to decide the said representation.

2.3. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the representation itself has not been addressed to the authorities against whom directions are sought, no mandamus can be issued in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The relief claimed is, therefore, wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable.

-:3:-

2.4. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

3. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 21.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No