Chanan Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.06.2026 Chanan Singh .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Divya Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.) Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present Criminal Writ Petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent No.2 to ensure protection of the life and personal liberty of the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, from the illegal acts and threats extended by respondents No.3 to 5, who are threatening the petitioner of false implication in case FIR No.0085 dated 17.04.2026, under Sections 329, 62, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS (corresponding

Sections 441, 511, 506, 34 of IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar, at the instance of respondent No.6. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been serving in the Revenue Department as a Patwari for more than 20 years and has an unblemished service record. He further submits that during the year 2023, the petitioner was posted as Patwari in Circle Nangli, Amritsar-II, and discharged his official duties in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, including Section 61 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

3.

It is further contended that respondent No.6-Surinder Singh, a retired Senior Assistant from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, submitted a complaint to the police making certain allegations regarding the revenue record. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.0085 dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) came to be registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar against one Davinder Singh and another unknown person. He further submits that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor has any role in the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioner has fully cooperated with the inquiry/investigation and apprehends unnecessary harassment at the hands of the investigating agency. 4.

It is further contended that the petitioner has a clean antecedent record and has never been involved in any criminal activity. The acts attributed to the petitioner were performed strictly in the discharge of his official duties and do not constitute any criminal offence. He further submits

that the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under compelling circumstances, as his life, liberty and property are allegedly under threat at the hands of local police officials who, according to him, are acting at the behest of respondent No.6 and are threatening to falsely implicate him in a criminal case.

5.

Notice of motion.

6.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the FIR was registered only on 17.04.2026 and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. It is argued that the petition has been filed prematurely with a view to thwart or impede the ongoing investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigating agency is proceeding strictly in accordance with law and no case for interference by this Court is made out. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record reveals that the FIR in question was registered based on a complaint submitted by respondent No.6 and the investigation pursuant thereto is still in progress. At this stage, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate any illegality, mala fides or abuse of process warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8.

In view of the above, finding no ground to interfere at this stage, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the investigating agency shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and the

petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law, if the need so arises. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 17.06.2026 Puneet/Parul Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No