Chandan Munjal vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Chandan Munjal, filed a writ petition seeking protection of his life and liberty from harassment by respondents No. 1 to 4 (State of Haryana and others) at the instance of respondent No. 5, his brother. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5, due to monetary and property disputes, habitually files false complaints against him. These complaints, he claimed, have been previously investigated and found to be baseless, leading to their closure. The petitioner sought adherence to a Government of Haryana policy for dealing with such repeated complaints and requested a status report on proceedings initiated based on respondent No. 5's latest complaint. The respondents filed a status report, and the court heard arguments from all parties.

Held

The Court held that the official respondents (No. 1 to 4) are not harassing or posing any threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner. The Court noted that FIR No. 395 dated 18.09.2019, registered on a complaint by respondent No. 5 alleging the petitioner sent bogus and forged GST numbers to tenant companies, had a cancellation report prepared. Furthermore, a separate complaint by respondent No. 5 against the petitioner, filed on 31.07.2021, was also found to be of a civil nature and consequently filed. The Court reasoned that the contents of the status report demonstrated that the official respondents were acting appropriately and not harassing the petitioner. Moreover, the Court deemed it inappropriate to pass any blanket order or direction to the official respondents for any future actions or omissions by private parties. Therefore, the petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the official respondents (No. 1 to 4) are harassing or posing a threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 5, and whether a blanket order should be issued to protect the petitioner from future actions based on private disputes? (Question of law and fact, concerning the protection of life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the conduct of official respondents). Petitioner's contentions: Respondent No. 5, driven by monetary/property disputes, files successive complaints with false allegations. These complaints have been previously found to be without substance and filed. Therefore, official respondents should not entertain such repeated complaints and should not summon the petitioner for inquiries concerning the same allegations. A Government of Haryana policy exists to address such situations and should be followed. Respondents' contentions: The complaint moved by respondent No. 5 has already been filed, and a cancellation report has been prepared for an FIR registered on another complaint by respondent No. 5. The guidelines issued by the said Policy are being strictly followed. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.