Mahender Singh Chawla v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-12668-2026 Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 MAHENDER SINGH CHAWLA

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. A.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Vashisht, DAG Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 19.01.2026 whereby Ld. Lokayukta Haryana has closed his complaint. He is further seeking direction to Lokayukta Haryana to reconsider his complaint.

2.

The petitioner was a witness in the case registered against Asa Ram Bapu. His supporter one Priyanka Sharma filed complaint against him which was found to be false. He filed complaint dated 29.03.2019 under Sections 182 & 211 IPC against Priyanka Sharma (accused). The police officials without associating him in inquiry submitted false report absolving the accused. He approached this Court by way of CRM-M-9624-2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2020. The police officials pursuant to directions of this Court filed Kalandra against the accused. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12668-2026 -2vide order dated 02.07.2025 set aside summoning order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Ld. JMIC. He filed complaint before Lokayukta against police officials for dereliction in duty while dealing with his complaint filed against the accused. The complaint has been closed vide order dated 19.01.2026 on the ground that grievance had been examined by Superintendent of Police, Panipat and allegations in the complaint need to be appreciated before the concerned Court dealing with the case. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner cannot approach trial Court against police officials. There is apparent lapse on the part of police officials. Lokayukta Haryana has wrongly rejected his application.

4.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that Lokayukta Haryana has considered submissions of the petitioner as well as documents on record. The matter was examined by SP Panipat. He submitted his report dated 21.10.2023. There is no dispute qua said report. The scope of interference against findings of Lokayukta is very limited. This Court cannot sit over findings of Lokayukta as Appellate Court.

6.

Dismissed.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE April 27, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document