CRWP-6985-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6985-2026 Date of decision: 12.06.2026 Pawan Kumar ...Peoner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for the pe..oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe..on filed under Ar.cle 226 of the Cons.tu.on of India, the pe..oner seeks issuance of appropriate direc.ons to respondents No.2 to 6 to take ac.on on his representa.on dated 01.06.2026 (Annexure P-6) against private respondents No.7 to 10 alleging commission of fraud and also seeks protec.on of his life, liberty and property. 2. Learned senior counsel for the pe..oner submits that respondent No.7, along with his companies i.e. respondents No.8 and 9, is owner in possession of certain parcels of land. It is contended that on the inducement and assurances extended by respondent No.7, the pe..oner entered into a partnership deed (Annexure P-1) for development of the said land. According to the pe..oner, respondent No.7 represented that an amount of ₹2 crore was required towards collabora.on expenses, licence fee and other ancillary charges for obtaining necessary permissions and licences in the name of the partnership concern. Ac.ng upon such representa.ons, the pe..oner allegedly invested the aforesaid amount and acquired a 25% share in the venture. It is further alleged that a?er obtaining the aforesaid amount and upon escala.on in the market value of the property, respondent No.7 dishonestly sidelined the pe..oner and entered into a separate collabora.on arrangement with respondent No.10. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6985-2026 [2] 3. The grievance of the pe..oner is that despite the subsistence of the partnership deed, he has been excluded from the project and his investment of ₹2 crore has been misappropriated. It is also averred that a civil suit seeking declara.on, permanent injunc.on and mandatory injunc.on has already been ins.tuted by the pe..oner and the same is presently pending adjudica.on before the competent Civil Court. The pe..oner further alleges that licence/permission has been granted by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning in favour of respondent No.7 despite his objec.ons and applica.on. Since no ac.on was allegedly taken on representa.on Annexure P-6, the present writ pe..on has been filed. 4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the pe..oner and perused the paper-book. 5. A bare reading of the pleadings leaves no doubt that the dispute essen.ally emanates from a partnership arrangement, alleged breach of contractual obliga.ons, investment of money, rights flowing from the partnership deed and compe.ng claims arising out of a development project. The determina.on of such issues would necessarily require examina.on of disputed ques.ons of fact, apprecia.on of evidence and adjudica.on of civil rights of the par.es, which fall squarely within the domain of the competent Civil Court. 6. Significantly, the pe..oner himself admits that a civil suit seeking declara.on, permanent injunc.on and mandatory injunc.on concerning the very same subject maEer is already pending. Once the pe..oner has availed the ordinary civil remedies and the dispute is sub judice before the Civil Court, this Court would be slow in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdic.on to issue direc.ons which may directly or indirectly affect the rights of the contes.ng par.es in the pending civil proceedings. 7. The mere use of expressions such as "fraud" or "chea.ng" in the pleadings would not, by itself, convert a predominantly civil and contractual YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6985-2026 [3] dispute into a maEer warran.ng interven.on in exercise of writ jurisdic.on. Whether respondent No.7 has violated the terms of the partnership deed, whether the pe..oner possesses any enforceable rights in the project, whether the amount claimed by him is recoverable and whether any subsequent transac.on entered into by respondent No.7 is legally sustainable, are the issues which are required to be adjudicated by the competent forum on the basis of evidence. 8. Equally, no ground is made out for issuance of direc.ons for protec.on of life and liberty. Except for a bald and general asser.on, the pe..on does not disclose any specific incident, threat percep.on or material from which it could be inferred that the life or personal liberty of the pe..oner is under any imminent threat from the private respondents. In the absence of any such averment or suppor.ng material, no direc.on on that count is called for. 9. This Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by direc.ng the authori.es to decide the representa.on dated 01.06.2026 when the underlying grievance pertains to a private dispute involving contractual and proprietary rights and the pe..oner is already pursuing appropriate civil remedies before the competent Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdic.on under Ar.cle 226 of the Cons.tu.on of India. 11. Consequently, the present writ pe..on is dismissed. 12.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.15 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document