The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday ordered that no coercive steps would be taken in an FIR registered on April 12 pursuant to directions of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission in a 2007 land dispute.
The Bench also issued notice to the commission and the complaint in the police case on the petition questioning the commission’s jurisdiction in the matter.
Among other things, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry will now examine a larger legal issue –– whether non-registration of an FIR amounts to a human rights violation and whether the Commission can intervene in such disputes at all.
The interim protection came in the case arising out of the long-running land dispute. The petitioner before the Bench had earlier not only questioned the Commission’s power to order criminal action, but also the very maintainability of the complaint before the human rights body.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Kshitij Sharma and counsel Gauravjit Singh Patwalia argued that the case involved far more than the question already dealt with in an earlier judgment holding the Commission to be a recommendatory body.
He submitted that two foundational issues remained unanswered in the present case –– whether the complaint itself disclosed a human rights violation and whether it was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 36 of the Act.
“The complaint which they received was essentially a property civil dispute,” Patwalia argued, contending that the Commission could not even have entertained it in the first place. Referring to precedent, he maintained that recommendations or directions came much later; the threshold question was maintainability.
He also pressed the limitation point, telling the Bench that the allegations related back to 2011, making the proceedings ex-facie beyond the one-year statutory limitation period. Patwalia said he did not want the matter disposed of merely as “covered” by previous rulings, only for the parties to return to court later on unresolved issues concerning the FIR, jurisdiction and nature of the dispute.
Seeking interim protection, Patwalia submitted that proceedings before the Commission and the resulting FIR had created parallel consequences in a dispute that was fundamentally civil and already the subject matter of litigation elsewhere.
The Bench repeatedly questioned the complainant on the nature of the allegations. Chief Justice Nagu asked whether non-registration of an FIR came within the domain of “violation of human rights” and whether alternative remedies under criminal law — including recourse under Section 156(3) CrPC — had been pursued.
The dispute goes back to April 2007. The petitioner had agreed to sell over three acres in Ludhiana. An amount of Rs 1 crore was paid as earnest money. But the land was already under litigation before the Supreme Court of India. The sale depended on the outcome of that case.
A few months later, the original buyer backed out. A company was brought in instead. A fresh agreement was signed with the company, replacing the earlier one. Later, after the Supreme Court ruled in the petitioner’s favour, the deal did not go through. The petitioner cancelled the agreement, alleging default. This led to a civil suit for specific performance by the company.
Patwalia told the High Court that in 2016 another person entered into a separate deal with the company. He, in collusion with their representative of the company and behind the petitioner’s back, entered into independent negotiations for purchase of the same property and paid substantial amount to the company. It was admitted position that the petitioner neither participated in, no received any consideration, for the transactions.
The person, with an intent to coerce and harass the petitioner, filed multiple criminal complaints. The Ludhiana police conducted an inquiry and refused to register an FIR. They concluded the dispute was civil in nature.
“Shockingly, after an unexplained the delay of newly 17 years an FIR came to register on December 24, 2024, at Delhi in respect of the same property despite the entire cause of action arising in Ludhiana, thereby raising serious jurisdictional concerns,” Patwalia contended, adding that the FIR was challenged before the Delhi High Court, where notices were issued.
Patwalia contended on the petitioner’s behalf that the matter did not end there. In August 2025, the complainant approached the Punjab Human Rights Commission. A Special Investigation Team was formed. The petitioner added he appeared before the SIT several times. But he was never given a copy of the complaint and the inquiry was conducted behind his back.
An ex parte report was submitted on February 27. The report drew adverse conclusions against him. Soon after, on March 10, the Commission directed registration of an FIR. Based on this direction, another FIR was registered on April 12.
