Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised to Stall Bona Fide Village Development Projects: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Complaint Against Entire Gram Panchayat and Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process
Case Name: Anju Bala and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-21706-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to become an instrument for obstructing bona fide developmental activities undertaken by democratically elected Gram Panchayats in discharge of their statutory functions. The Court observed that where resolutions were validly passed, the sale consideration was received by the Gram Panchayat, no allegation of personal enrichment or forgery existed, and the development project had already been completed for public welfare, continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to a gross abuse of the criminal justice system.
The Court further held that the complainant had failed to establish any element of cheating, impersonation or criminal conspiracy. If the complainant believed that the land forming part of Mushtarka Malkan had been illegally transferred, the appropriate remedy lay before the civil court by seeking declaration of title or compensation and not by prosecuting the elected members of the Gram Panchayat through criminal proceedings.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the allegations did not disclose the commission of any cognizable criminal offence and that continuation of the prosecution would only result in unnecessary harassment of public representatives. Accordingly, the criminal complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings were quashed, while exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh were imposed upon the complainant for abusing the process of law. The Court also directed circulation of the judgment amongst Gram Panchayats in Punjab and Haryana to encourage similar public welfare initiatives.
Summary: The petition was instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the former Sarpanch and eight Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Pilkhani, District Ambala, seeking quashing of Complaint No. 270 of 2018 and the summoning order whereby they had been directed to face trial under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The complaint was filed by a resident of the village claiming to be a co-sharer in Mushtarka Malkan land. It was alleged that the petitioners, acting in conspiracy, had illegally transferred approximately 4 acres and 11 marlas of village land to the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) for construction of a 66 KV Power Sub Station by passing fabricated resolutions and executing a fraudulent sale deed without authority.
The petitioners, however, demonstrated that the proposal for establishing the electricity sub-station had originated much earlier through resolutions passed by successive Gram Panchayats beginning in 2012. The project had been undertaken solely to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply to the village and surrounding areas. The market value of the land had been determined by the competent revenue authorities, the sale consideration exceeding ₹1 crore had been credited directly into the Gram Panchayat’s bank account, and the amount continued to remain invested in a fixed deposit. The power station had already become operational after being inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Haryana.
The State itself admitted that an earlier police inquiry into the complainant’s allegations had found no substance. It also did not dispute the authenticity of the Panchayat resolutions or the receipt of the sale consideration by the Gram Panchayat.
Rejecting the complaint, Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the entire criminal prosecution was founded upon village factionalism rather than any genuine criminal wrongdoing. The Court found it significant that there was no allegation whatsoever that any member of the Gram Panchayat had misappropriated public funds or derived any personal financial benefit from the transaction. Equally, there was no allegation that the Panchayat resolutions or official documents had been forged or fabricated.
The Court held that if the complainant genuinely claimed proprietary rights in the Mushtarka Malkan land, the proper remedy was to institute appropriate civil proceedings for declaration of title, possession or compensation. Criminal law could not be invoked as a substitute for civil remedies merely because the complainant disputed the transfer of land.
Distinguishing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, the Court held that the judgment concerning proprietary rights over village common land did not justify criminal prosecution of Panchayat members who had acted collectively for execution of a public utility project.
Relying extensively upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, and Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings instituted without any prima facie criminal ingredients, particularly to settle personal or political scores, constitute an abuse of process warranting intervention under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court further observed that the establishment of the 66 KV power station represented a progressive developmental initiative undertaken in public interest by an elected Gram Panchayat. Such initiatives deserve judicial encouragement rather than criminal prosecution motivated by private grievances. To discourage similar misuse of criminal law, the Court imposed exemplary costs upon the complainant and directed that the judgment be circulated amongst Gram Panchayats to encourage developmental works for village welfare.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed Complaint, the summoning order and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The complainant was directed to pay exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 to the Gram Panchayat, Village Pilkhani, with an additional liability of ₹1,000 per day in case of default. The Court further directed the Additional Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to circulate the judgment amongst Gram Panchayats so as to encourage public welfare and developmental projects.