Mere Bald Allegations of Threat Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea for Protection of Life and Liberty

Case Name: Lathesh Sanjeeva Kumble v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 06 March 2026

Citation: CRWP-2015-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that vague and unsubstantiated allegations of threat cannot justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where the petitioner fails to produce credible material showing an imminent threat to life and liberty, and an alternative statutory remedy is available before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the High Court will decline to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions for protection of his life and liberty, alleging harassment and threats from private respondents in connection with a business dispute relating to investment in a company named M/s Shri Lap Multiverse Pvt. Ltd.

According to the petitioner, he had entered into an agreement with the private respondents to facilitate investment in the company. He claimed that the respondents represented that the company possessed a bank guarantee of ₹500 crores. The petitioner stated that his firm was to charge consultancy fees of ₹2 crores for facilitating the investment and had conducted due diligence into the company’s credentials. During verification, he allegedly discovered that the company’s bank account had already been declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

The petitioner further alleged that he had been compelled to sign certain blank documents during the course of business dealings, which were now being misused by the private respondents. When he refused to comply with their financial demands, the respondents allegedly started threatening and assaulting him.

It was also contended that the petitioner had previously approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition seeking protection. That petition had been disposed of with directions to the authorities to consider his representation and provide security if necessary. According to the petitioner, despite these directions, no effective action had been taken and he continued to face threats.

The petitioner also pointed out that a criminal case had allegedly been registered against him in the State of Gujarat and that he had obtained transit anticipatory bail from the High Court to approach the competent court in Gujarat. He further claimed that he had repeatedly submitted complaints and representations to the police authorities seeking protection for himself and his family members.

After hearing the petitioner’s counsel and examining the record, the Court observed that the petition primarily contained allegations of threats and harassment without placing any credible material on record to substantiate the claimed danger to the petitioner’s life or liberty. The Court held that mere bald assertions unsupported by cogent evidence cannot form the basis for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had already approached the High Court earlier and that the authorities had passed a speaking order on his representation. Therefore, the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-consideration of his representation did not survive.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that where a person alleges commission of an offence or seeks registration of an FIR or monitoring of investigation, the appropriate remedy is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Magistrate possesses adequate powers under the criminal procedure framework to order registration of an FIR, monitor investigation, or pass other appropriate directions.

The Court reiterated that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. T.R. Verma, which emphasizes that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists.

Since the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory remedy before the Magistrate and had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting intervention, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the case did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the petitioner was free to pursue remedies available before the competent Magistrate.