CWP-11691-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 139 Ashok Maggu The Lokayukta, Haryana & others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. AG, Haryana. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.01.2026 passed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to take action aga representation dated 30.06.2025. 2. The petitioner is a public against officials, who along with respondent organised crime of house respondent No.5 lodged FIR No.1060 dated 24.12.2018 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at PS Karnal Civil Lines. He approached this Court by way of CRM-M-17193 vide order da pursuant to which the Superintendent of Police, Karnal initiated inquiry against the erring officials. Despite inquiry report dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the DSP, no action has been taken against representation dated 30.06.2025 before Chief Minister to take action against 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Versus The Lokayukta, Haryana & others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. AG, Haryana. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.01.2026 passed by respondent No.1 – Lokayukta, Haryana. He is also seeking direction to respondent No.2 to take action against the erring official in view of his representation dated 30.06.2025. The petitioner is a public-spirited person. He filed complaint against officials, who along with respondent organised crime of house-grabbing. Respondent respondent No.5 lodged FIR No.1060 dated 24.12.2018 under Sections 406, B IPC at PS Karnal Civil Lines. He approached this Court by way of 17193-2021 seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR, which was allowed vide order dated 14.11.2023. He served representation dated 22.08.2024 pursuant to which the Superintendent of Police, Karnal initiated inquiry against the erring officials. Despite inquiry report dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the DSP, no action has been taken against the erring officials till date. He preferred representation dated 30.06.2025 before Chief Minister to take action against IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11691-2026 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 …Petitioner ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. AG, Haryana. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.01.2026 Lokayukta, Haryana. He is also seeking direction inst the erring official in view of his spirited person. He filed complaint against officials, who along with respondent No.9 are involved in the grabbing. Respondent No.9 on the assurance of respondent No.5 lodged FIR No.1060 dated 24.12.2018 under Sections 406, B IPC at PS Karnal Civil Lines. He approached this Court by way of seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR, which was allowed ted 14.11.2023. He served representation dated 22.08.2024 pursuant to which the Superintendent of Police, Karnal initiated inquiry against the erring officials. Despite inquiry report dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the the erring officials till date. He preferred representation dated 30.06.2025 before Chief Minister to take action against The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.01.2026 Lokayukta, Haryana. He is also seeking direction inst the erring official in view of his spirited person. He filed complaint are involved in the No.9 on the assurance of respondent No.5 lodged FIR No.1060 dated 24.12.2018 under Sections 406, B IPC at PS Karnal Civil Lines. He approached this Court by way of seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR, which was allowed ted 14.11.2023. He served representation dated 22.08.2024 pursuant to which the Superintendent of Police, Karnal initiated inquiry against the erring officials. Despite inquiry report dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the the erring officials till date. He preferred representation dated 30.06.2025 before Chief Minister to take action against VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11691-2026 the erring officials, but to no avail. He preferred application dated 09.10.2025 before learned Lokayukta, which was closed vide order the ground that the issue could have been raised before this Court during the proceedings seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR. further held that sufficient evidence is not available to proceed against DSP and ASI. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lokayukta has not appreciated the inquiry report and mechanically closed his complaint. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the matter was thoroughly examined and no official was found guilty of thus, no action was initiated against them. There is no infirmity in the order of the Lokayukta. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that at the behest of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted. The police officials were not found guilty. The allegation of corruption could not be proved. The Lokayukta has examined the matter and closed the complaint. In view of the specific findings of the Inquiry Officer interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction 7. In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that on account of filing of complaints and approaching this Cou the respondents/police officials would not harass or create any other unwarranted problem for the petitioner. 20.04.2026 Vimal 2026 -2- the erring officials, but to no avail. He preferred application dated 09.10.2025 before learned Lokayukta, which was closed vide order the ground that the issue could have been raised before this Court during the proceedings seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR. further held that sufficient evidence is not available to proceed against DSP Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lokayukta has not appreciated the inquiry report and mechanically closed his complaint. Learned State counsel submits that the matter was thoroughly examined and no official was found guilty of thus, no action was initiated against them. There is no infirmity in the order of the Lokayukta. Heard the arguments and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that at the behest of petitioner, an inquiry was conducted. The police officials were not found guilty. The allegation of corruption could not be proved. The Lokayukta has examined the matter and closed the complaint. In view of the specific findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as order of Lokayukta, there seems no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that on account of filing of complaints and approaching this Cou the respondents/police officials would not harass or create any other unwarranted problem for the petitioner. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No the erring officials, but to no avail. He preferred application dated 09.10.2025 before learned Lokayukta, which was closed vide order dated 27.01.2026 on the ground that the issue could have been raised before this Court during the proceedings seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR. Learned Lokayukta has further held that sufficient evidence is not available to proceed against DSP Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lokayukta has not appreciated the inquiry report and mechanically closed his complaint. Learned State counsel submits that the matter was thoroughly examined and no official was found guilty of corruption or misuse of power, thus, no action was initiated against them. There is no infirmity in the order of Heard the arguments and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that at the behest of petitioner, an inquiry was conducted. The police officials were not found guilty. The allegation of corruption could not be proved. The Lokayukta has examined the matter and closed the complaint. In view of the specific findings as well as order of Lokayukta, there seems no reason to of this Court. In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that on account of filing of complaints and approaching this Court, the respondents/police officials would not harass or create any other (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the erring officials, but to no avail. He preferred application dated 09.10.2025 dated 27.01.2026 on the ground that the issue could have been raised before this Court during the Learned Lokayukta has further held that sufficient evidence is not available to proceed against DSP Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lokayukta has Learned State counsel submits that the matter was thoroughly corruption or misuse of power, thus, no action was initiated against them. There is no infirmity in the order of From the perusal of the record, it is evident that at the behest of petitioner, an inquiry was conducted. The police officials were not found guilty. The allegation of corruption could not be proved. The Lokayukta has examined the matter and closed the complaint. In view of the specific findings as well as order of Lokayukta, there seems no reason to In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is rt, the respondents/police officials would not harass or create any other ) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.20 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document