CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Rajesh Verma and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Deepender Pratap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, for conducting a fair and impartial inquiry into the grievance of the petitioners. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the speaking order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P- 3) passed by respondent No.3 as being cryptic and non-speaking and for issuance of appropriate directions to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. 2. As claimed by the petitioners, on 04.04.2024, they were allegedly assaulted by their neighbours, resulting in registration of FIR No.66 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad. According to them, after registration of the said FIR, the accused persons continuously threatened them with dire consequences and pressurized them to withdraw the criminal case. Subsequently, FIR No.19 dated MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) -2- 02.02.2026 came to be registered against the petitioners, which they claim to be a retaliatory measure. Apprehending danger to their lives, the petitioners approached this Court by filing CRWP No.3767 of 2026, which was disposed of on 06.04.2026 with a direction to the Commissioner of Police to consider and decide their representation dated 07.03.2026 by passing a speaking order. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 passed the impugned speaking order dated 10.04.2026 declining to recommend police protection. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that despite repeated representations and continuing threats, the police authorities failed to extend protection and instead attempted to compel them to enter into a compromise with the opposite party. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that although this Court had directed the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 is merely an eyewash and does not address the real grievance regarding protection of the petitioners' life and liberty. The petitioners have been consistently receiving threats from the accused persons after registration of FIR No.66 and that the local police has deliberately ignored their repeated representations dated 16.04.2026, 21.04.2026, 24.04.2026 and 04.05.2026. Instead of providing protection, the police officials deputed by the department pressurized the petitioners to compromise with the accused persons and withdraw the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that such conduct has been captured in CCTV footage installed at the residence of the petitioners. It is, thus, argued that the local police has acted in a partisan manner, making it imperative that the matter be entrusted to an independent Special Investigation Team headed by senior police officers and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) -3- appropriate directions be issued for protection of the petitioners and their family members. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. He, on instructions and relying upon the speaking order dated 10.04.2026 as well as the inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, submits that the representation of the petitioners was thoroughly examined in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that during inquiry, the statements of the petitioners, the persons against whom allegations were levelled and other local residents were recorded. The inquiry revealed that although the petitioners alleged receipt of threats on 07.03.2026 and 08.04.2026, they failed to produce any independent material or reliable evidence substantiating such allegations. Learned State counsel has further submitted that CCTV footage from the jewellery shops situated near the alleged place of occurrence was examined. However, the relevant footage was not available since the recording systems automatically overwrite data after 10 to 15 days. The statements of the shop owners were also recorded to that effect. It is further argued that during inquiry it came to light that there is longstanding litigation and cross-cases between the parties. FIR No.66 of 2024 is pending against the opposite side, whereas FIR No.19 of 2026 has been registered against the petitioners. Besides these criminal cases, both sides have also been making repeated complaints against each other before the police authorities, all of which have been duly inquired into and filed after investigation. The inquiry also disclosed that even prior to the alleged threats, petitioner Rajesh Verma had voluntarily obtained a licensed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) -4- firearm for his own security from M/s Guru Ji Gun House, DLF Centre Point, Sector-11, Faridabad, thereby indicating that he was already in possession of a lawful weapon for self-defence. After examining the statements of all concerned persons, the surrounding circumstances and the available material, the inquiry found no credible evidence to establish that any threats had actually been extended to the petitioners. In the absence of any substantiating material, respondent No.3 rightly declined to recommend police protection by passing a reasoned speaking order and, therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The grievance of the petitioners essentially pertains to the speaking order dated 10.04.2026 passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the competent authority did not reject the representation mechanically. Rather, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, during which statements of the petitioners, the private respondents, neighbouring persons and other relevant witnesses were recorded. CCTV footage from nearby establishments was also sought to be collected, though the same was found unavailable because the recording systems had overwritten the data in the normal course. The inquiry further records that both sides have been involved in longstanding litigation and criminal proceedings against each other and have repeatedly submitted complaints against one another. Significantly, despite alleging continuous threats, the petitioners could not produce any cogent or independent material before the inquiry officer to substantiate the allegations. On the contrary, the inquiry specifically concludes MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36868-2026 (O&M) -5- that no credible evidence regarding extension of threats came forth. The fact that petitioner No.1 had already obtained a licensed firearm for his personal security was also noticed during inquiry. 8. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS is supervisory in nature. Once the competent authority has undertaken a factual inquiry pursuant to judicial directions and has recorded findings based upon the material collected during such inquiry, this Court would not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the factual conclusions unless the decision is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, perverse or actuated by mala fides. No such circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case. Merely because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by the police authorities cannot, by itself, furnish a ground either to direct constitution of a Special Investigation Team or to interfere with a reasoned administrative decision declining police protection. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Needless to observe, in the event of any fresh or specific incident giving rise to a genuine apprehension to the life and liberty of the petitioners, it shall be open to them to approach the competent police authorities by placing the relevant material on record, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document