P&H High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Villager For Harassing Panchayat Members Over "Progressive" Power Project
Such developmental project is rarely undertaken by Panchayats in this part of country, Court said.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and the consequent summoning order against nine former members of the Gram Panchayat of a village in Ambala, including the then Sarpanch and Panches, who were facing trial on allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy over the transfer of village common land for a 66 KV power sub-station. [2026 LL (PH) 242]It...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and the consequent summoning order against nine former members of the Gram Panchayat of a village in Ambala, including the then Sarpanch and Panches, who were facing trial on allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy over the transfer of village common land for a 66 KV power sub-station. [2026 LL (PH) 242]
It held that no criminality could be made out and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the complainant for "harassing and pressurizing" the petitioners.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "Complainant filed the complaint against construction of 66 KV Power Station in the village, which definitely could have hampered the developmental Project in the village...that too without giving any plausible explanation as to what persuaded or instigated him to file such a complaint or how he himself is an aggrieved party."
The Court opined that, such a progressive and developmental project is rarely undertaken by the village Panchayats in this part of the country. "The objective of the Panchayat needs to be appreciated so that it may encourage the other Panchayats also in the State to take up the developmental work on their own, even without there being any strong demand by the villagers."
The Gram Panchayat of Village Pilkhani, for the 2010-2015 term, had passed a resolution in 2012 allocating land for construction of a 66 KV Sub Station by Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) to ensure regular electricity supply to the village.
Following identification of a specific site by HVPNL, a further resolution in 2013 allocated land measuring 32 Kanals 11 Marlas for the project, and a subsequent resolution in 2014 confirmed the Panchayat's willingness to transfer roughly 4 acres 1 Kanal 1 Marla of its land to HVPNL at market rate.
The Tehsildar, Ambala, assessed the market value at ₹25,00,000 per acre, and the sub-station was eventually constructed and inaugurated by the then Chief Minister of Haryana in January 2017. Sale consideration of ₹1,01,72,500 was credited to the Gram Panchayat's account via sale deed dated 25.05.2018, and continues to be held as a Fixed Deposit Receipt.
Respondent No. 2, a resident of the village claiming a shareholding in the land as a co-proprietor of "Mushtarka Malkan" (common land), alleged that the sale deed had been manipulated by the Sarpanch and Panches through a false resolution, in fraudulent connivance with the HVPNL official and others, to transfer the land without his knowledge or consent and without following acquisition proceedings.
Having first approached the police, where no substance was found in his allegations, he filed a private criminal complaint in November 2018 under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 426, 427 and 447 IPC. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by him, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, summoned the Panchayat members to face trial under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B IPC vide order dated 28.03.2019, which was challenged along with the complaint before the High Court.
The petitioners argued that their actions were entirely an offshoot of successive Gram Panchayat resolutions passed for the welfare of the village, without any personal or unlawful gain, and that the entire sale consideration had been credited to the Panchayat's own account, a fact undisputed even in the State's reply. It was submitted that there was no allegation that any Panchayat member had personally profited, nor that the underlying resolutions were forged.
The Complainant argued that the land, being recorded as Mushtarka Malkan in revenue records, could not be transferred without acquisition proceedings, and that doing so violated Article 31-A of the Constitution, relying on State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2025 AIR CC 2969. It was contended that the transfer, effected without the knowledge of shareholders like himself, amounted to a misuse of power depriving them of their statutory rights.
The Court noted that the complainant had first approached the police, whose inquiry found no substance in the allegations, before resorting to a private complaint , a circumstance it found telling.
It observed that it was "strange" that an entire elected Gram Panchayat had been summoned to face trial at the instance of a single villager, without any allegation that Panchayat members received pecuniary benefit personally or for their family members, and without any claim that the Panchayat's resolutions were fake or forged. The sale consideration having gone directly into the Panchayat's account and remaining there as an FDR, the Court found no indication of any wrongful personal gain.
On the reliance placed on Jai Singh (supra), the Court held it was inapplicable, noting that a shareholder in Mushtarka Malkan land aggrieved by its use without compensation has the remedy of approaching a civil court to have his share declared and to claim compensation, a course respondent No. 2 had never pursued, either by protecting his possession or challenging the sale deed in any forum, at any point since the resolutions were passed.
Applying the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — as reiterated in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 127, the Court held that the allegations, even taken at face value, did not disclose any offence.
It further relied on Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagdish Prasad Bagri, 2026(1) RCR (Criminal) 57, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, and Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, on the principle that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to be used as a tool of harassment, private vendetta, or to serve an oblique motive, and that courts must guard against such misuse of the criminal justice machinery.
The Court observed that such community welfare initiatives, undertaken proactively by a Gram Panchayat without external pressure, deserved to be appreciated and encouraged rather than derailed through unsubstantiated criminal complaints, particularly where the complainant offered no explanation for what prompted him to file the complaint or how he was personally aggrieved.
Holding that no criminality was made out in the transaction, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Complaint No. 270 of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, along with the summoning order dated 28.03.2019 and all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioners.
Observing that the complaint had caused unnecessary harassment to the Panchayat and its members, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to the Gram Panchayat, Village Pilkhani, by 17.10.2026, with an additional cost for each day of delay, as a deterrent against frivolous criminal complaints filed without locus.
The Court further directed that a copy of the order be circulated by the Additional Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, among Gram Panchayats across both States, so that similar developmental initiatives by Panchayats may be encouraged.
Case Title: Anju Bala and others v. State of Haryana and another Case No.: CRM-M-21706-2019
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Ms. Varsha Chaudhary and Ms. Sundeep Kaur, Advocates
Counsel for the State: Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Akashdeep Singh and Mr. K.J.S. Bhullar, Advocates