Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/8431/2026 of SURENDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 17 July 2026
1- 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRWP-8431-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 SURENDER …PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Harsh Yadav, Advocate for the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-8431-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.07.2026
SURENDER
…PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present:
Mr. Harsh Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The criminal writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:-
(i) Direction to official respondents No.2 to 4 to register FIR in accordance with law on petitioner’s complaint dated 14.05.2026, representation dated 29.05.2026 against respondents No.5 to 7 and to protect life and liberty of the petitioner and his family, at the hands of the private respondents;
(ii) Direction to private respondents No.5 to 7 and their agents not to enter in the premises of petitioner or his family members.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had a dispute with respondent No.5 in connection with 300 sq. yards land in village Rathdhana, Sonipat. A civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.5 against the petitioner which was pending before learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Sonipat. One month before filing the petition, male and female bouncers engaged by respondent No.5 repeatedly and openly threatened petitioner’s wife and other family members with false implication in a molestation case or other serious offences. Complaint in this regard was moved to SHO, Police Station Sector 27, Sonipat seeking registration of FIR but no FIR was registered. It is prayed that life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members be protected and respondent No.5 be restrained from threatening or intimidating the petitioner.
3. Notice of motion to official respondents only.
4. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. On instructions from HC Suman, he submits that FIR No.28 dated 08.06.2026 under Section 126, 170 BNSS stood registered against the petitioner. On two previous occasions, on complaint of security guard of respondent No.5, preventive action was taken by the police. The petition was filed only to create a defence in the criminal case wherein petitioner was not arrested. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Apparently, there is a civil dispute pending between petitioner and respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 is an employee of respondent No.5. The factum of registration of FIR against the petitioner on 08.06.2026 has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner but has been suppressed in the petition. Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and his grievance does not appear bona fide. No directions for protection of life and liberty can be passed in the circumstances of the case, when there is clear suppression of material facts and a civil dispute relating to property.
6. The petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 17.07.2026 Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No