(PHHC011132232026) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174 CRM-M-39179-2026 Date of Decision:-20.07.2026 RAJENDER KUMAR ......PETITIONER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Mohit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) 1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.) has been dismissed and for issuance of directions to the official respondents to register an FIR and conduct a free and fair investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the private respondents are dispossessing the petitioner from a land of which he is in exclusive possession. An application was moved before the Magistrate under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, which has been dismissed. Therefore, the said order be quashed, as KUSUM 2026.07.21 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-39179-2026 -2- the report of the Tehsildar conclusively establishes that the petitioner is in the possession of the said land, and direction be issued for the registration of an FIR. 3. The learned State counsel submits that both the parties were found to be in joint possession of the property and the FIR cannot be registered, and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the report of the investigating agency was called for, and it has been found that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false. Further, it has been found that both the parties are in joint possession of the property. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant ever remained in exclusive possession of the property. In this situation, it cannot be said that the private respondents dispossessed the petitioner of the said land. 5. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.21 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh