Holding that criminal law cannot be used to stifle bona fide village development initiatives undertaken without personal gain, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against nine former members of Pilkhani Gram Panchayat in Ambala, while directing the States of Punjab and Haryana to circulate its judgment among Gram Panchayats to encourage similar welfare projects.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth also imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on the complainant before directing him to deposit the amount with the Gram Panchayat by October 17.

The matter was placed before Justice Vashisth after nine petitioners, who had served as Sarpanch and Panches during the 2016-2020 term, sought directions for quashing the complaint dated November 16, 2018, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 447, 419, 420, 426 and 427 IPC, along with the March 28, 2019, summoning order whereby Ambala Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala, ummoned them to face trial under Sections 420, 419 and 120-B IPC.

The Bench was told that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution allocating 32 kanals 11 marlas owned and possessed by it for the construction of a 66 KV sub-station by Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL).

In this regard, the then Gram Panchayat passed resolution dated May 8, 2012, vide which it was unanimously decided that an HVPNL Sub Station was required in the village to ensure regular supply of electricity for the inhabitants of the village and the surrounding areas. Sale consideration of Rs.1,01,72,500 was received by the Gram Panchayat in lieu of the land transferred to HVPNL, vide sale deed dated May 25, 2018. The amount was currently lying deposited in the form of an FDR in the bank account of the Gram Panchayat. The petitooners were represented by advocates Sandeep Singh Jattan, Varsha Chaudhary and Sundeep Kaur

After hearing rival contentions in the matter, Justice Vashisth observed that the complainant first approached the police, where “no substance was found” in his allegations, and thereafter instituted the criminal complaint.

Describing the prosecution as extraordinary, Justice Vashisth asserted: “It is strange that, at the instance of one villager, the entire Gram Panchayat is projected as accused and without even looking at the complete set of allegations alongwith the documents on record, they were summoned by the Court of Magistrate.”

Justice Vashisth added: “It is nobody’s case that petitioners received any pecuniary gain in their personal account or in their family members bank account, nor it is alleged that documents and resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat from time to time were fake, false or forged.”

Examining the background of the project, Justice Vashisth found that repeated Gram Panchayat meetings had unanimously resolved to establish the power project because villagers had been “living in a compulsive atmosphere with the darkness after sunset” owing to lack of electricity supply. The land valuation had been carried out by senior Panchayat Department officials, while the project itself was executed after involving the BDPO and HVPNL.

Justice Vashisth further observed: “On examination of the criminal complaint, this Court could not find that in any manner Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch or any of it’s Panch has gained monetarily. Mere allegation that complainant has been put to loss would not enough to penalize the members of the Panchayat by forcing them to face the trial in a criminal case.”

The court concluded that the complaint itself was devoid of substance, particularly since the complainant had never challenged the sale deed executed in favour of HVPNL. “The complaint filed by the complainant seems to be without any substantial reason and that too without even challenging the validity of sale deed in favour of HVPNL, this Court has no hesitation to say that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent-complainant is totally misuse of the criminal law.”

The Bench added: “This court is of considered view that such a progressive and developmental project is rarely undertaken by the village Panchayats in this part of the country. The objective of the Panchayat needs to be appreciated so that it may encourage the other Panchayats also in the State to take up the developmental work on their own...”

The Bench added it was unable to see any criminality in the allegations or the purpose for which the land was given to the HVPNL by the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint, the summoning order and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

Imposing Rs 1 lakh costs upon the complainant, the court directed payment to the Gram Panchayat by October 17, 2026, failing which additional costs of Rs 1,000 per day of delay would accrue.

The court explained: “Costs is being imposed as a deterrent, so that message could reach to others also, not to ever file false and frivolous criminal complaints and that too without any locus.” Justice Vashisth ordered that copies of the judgment be forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, for circulation among Gram Panchayats across both States so that they “may also get inspiration/encouragement to take such steps and come forward to initiate projects of the village welfare and residents of the area.”