Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Sarpanch and Panches, Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost on Complainant for Targeting Village Power Project
Justice Sanjay Vashisth quashed a private complaint against nine Gram Panchayat members who transferred land for a 66 KV sub-station, finding no criminality and imposing costs on the complainant.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has quashed a criminal complaint and the consequential summoning order issued against all nine members of the Gram Panchayat of village Pilkhani, District Ambala — the Sarpanch and eight Panches — who were accused of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and misappropriation in connection with the transfer of panchayat land for the construction of a 66 KV power sub-station. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, sitting singly, found that the complaint disclosed no criminality, that no personal monetary gain was alleged against any of the accused, and that the proceedings amounted to a misuse of criminal law. The court went further and imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the complainant, payable to the Gram Panchayat, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to both States’ Additional Chief Secretaries for circulation among Gram Panchayats.
The Complaint and the Summoning Order
Gurdev Singh, a resident of village Pilkhani and respondent No. 2 in this petition, filed Complaint No. 270 of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Ambala. The complaint was directed against the Sarpanch, the Panches, the SDO of UHBVN, the Sub-Registrar, Ambala Cantt, and others, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 447, 419, 420, 426, and 427 of the IPC.
Gurdev Singh claimed to be a share-holder in the Mushtarka Malkan land of village Pilkhani. His case was that the Gram Panchayat had no title or right over the land, and that the Sarpanch and Panches, acting in criminal conspiracy, executed a sale deed dated 25.05.2018 in favour of UHBVN for land measuring approximately 4 acres 11 marlas, showing a sale consideration of Rs 1,01,72,500. He alleged that this was done without the knowledge or consent of the proprietors, and that the documents and resolutions were fabricated to deceive the revenue authorities.
Gurdev Singh had first approached the police in 2018. No substance was found in that complaint and no action was taken. He then filed the formal criminal complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, the JMIC, Ambala summoned the petitioners vide order dated 28.03.2019 to face trial for offences under Sections 420, 419, and 120-B IPC. The nine petitioners — elected for the term 2016 to 2020 — challenged the complaint and the summoning order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Panchayat’s Account of the Land Transfer
The petitioners placed a detailed factual record before the court tracing the genesis of the 66 KV sub-station project. The earlier Gram Panchayat (term 2010 to 2015) had passed Resolution No. 1 dated 08.05.2012, unanimously deciding that an HVPNL sub-station was required in the village for regular electricity supply. On 28.08.2012, HVPNL, Sector 6, Panchkula, identified a site in village Pilkhani for the sub-station. A further resolution dated 16.03.2013 formally allocated land bearing Khasra Nos. 19//14/2, 19//15, 19/6, 19//5/2, 18//1, 18//10, and 18//11/1, totalling 32 Kanals 11 Marlas, for construction of the 66 KV sub-station.
A resolution dated 06.06.2014 noted the total available panchayat land and confirmed that 4 Acres 1 Kanal 1 Marla had been earmarked. The Tehsildar, Ambala, assessed the market value at Rs 25,00,000 per acre vide report dated 05.02.2015. The sub-station was eventually constructed by HVPNL and inaugurated by the then Chief Minister of Haryana on 05.01.2017. The sale consideration of Rs 1,01,72,500 received from HVPNL was deposited as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the Gram Panchayat’s bank account and remained there as of the date of hearing.
The State, in its reply dated 25.02.2020, admitted the facts set out by the petitioners and confirmed that when the police had earlier enquired into Gurdev Singh’s complaint, no substance had been found. The State did not point to any fault in the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat.
Respondent’s Reliance on Article 31-A and Jai Singh
Counsel for Gurdev Singh argued that the land was recorded as Mushtarka Malkan in revenue records, and that such land could not be transferred without following lawful acquisition proceedings. He submitted that the transfer, without acquisition, violated Article 31-A of the Constitution. He placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2025 AIR CC 2969, decided by the Supreme Court, to contend that the panchayat members could be held answerable for proceeding without the knowledge of share-holders.
He further argued that the summoning order contained no illegality and that the petition deserved to be dismissed.
Why the Court Found No Criminality
Justice Vashisth examined the complaint, the resolutions, and the State’s reply and concluded that the criminal proceedings were initiated without any substantial basis.
The court observed that it was nobody’s case that any of the petitioners had received money in their personal accounts or in their family members’ accounts. The resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat were not alleged to be fake, false, or forged. The sale consideration had been deposited entirely in the Gram Panchayat’s account and the FDR still existed. The project was unanimously resolved over multiple sittings of the panchayat, carried out in coordination with the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and HVPNL, and the land was valued by senior government officials. The sub-station was inaugurated by the Chief Minister and had been operational since January 2017.
On the claim of share-holding in Mushtarka Malkan, the court noted that Gurdev Singh had taken no civil law steps to protect his alleged possession at any point between the passing of the resolutions and the filing of his complaint. The proper remedy, the court observed, was a civil suit for declaration or compensation, not a criminal complaint. No declaration had ever been obtained that the land in question was Mushtarka Malkan, Shamlat Deh, or Bachat land.
As for the reliance on Jai Singh (supra), the court held that the judgment had no application to the present proceedings, because the route for a share-holder seeking redress lay through civil law — pleading his share and seeking declaration or compensation — and not through criminal prosecution of panchayat members.
The court applied the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, as affirmed recently in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(4) RCR(Criminal) 127, and P.M. Lokanath and others v. State of Karnataka and another, 2025(2) RCR(Criminal) 11. The bench found that the allegations, even taken at face value, did not constitute any offence and were inherently improbable as a foundation for criminal proceedings.
The court also drew on Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri and another, 2026(1) RCR(Criminal) 57, and the Supreme Court’s observations in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, where it was warned that “the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives.”
The court also drew on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, for the proposition that criminal prosecution must not be used as an instrument of harassment, private vendetta, or to pressurise the accused.
Costs and Wider Directions
Justice Vashisth did not stop at quashing the complaint. The court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on Gurdev Singh, payable to the Gram Panchayat, Village Pilkhani, District Ambala, on or before 17.10.2026. The order further directed that if the amount was not paid by that date, an additional cost of Rs 1,000 per day of delay would accrue. The court stated explicitly that the cost was imposed as a deterrent — “so that message could reach to others also, not to ever file false and frivolous criminal complaints and that too without any locus.”
The court observed that the complaint had targeted a progressive developmental project — one rarely undertaken by village panchayats in that part of the country — without any plausible explanation of how Gurdev Singh was personally aggrieved, and without ever challenging the validity of the sale deed in any court of law.
In an unusual additional direction, the court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Additional Chief Secretaries of both Punjab and Haryana, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, for onward circulation among Gram Panchayats in various districts of Punjab, “so that they may also get inspiration/encouragement to take such steps and come forward to initiate projects of the village welfare and residents of the area.”
Order
CRM-M-21706-2019 was allowed. Complaint No. 270 of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, the summoning order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the JMIC, Ambala, and all consequential proceedings against the nine petitioners were quashed. Gurdev Singh was directed to pay Rs 1,00,000 to the Gram Panchayat, Village Pilkhani, District Ambala, by 17.10.2026, with an additional daily cost of Rs 1,000 for each day of delay thereafter. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of. The order was marked as speaking/reasoned and reportable.