An important question of law—whether the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, under the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, has the power to direct registration of an FIR or functions only as a recommendatory body—will be examined by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case arising out of a land transaction entered into nearly two decades ago. Among other things, the petitioner in the case has claimed the law has been misused to give a “criminal colour” to what was always a civil matter.The dispute goes back to April 2007. The petitioner had agreed to sell over three acres of land in Ludhiana. An amount of Rs 1 crore was paid as earnest money. But the land was already under litigation before the Supreme Court of India. The sale depended on the outcome of that case.A few months later, the original buyer backed out. A company was brought in instead. A fresh agreement was signed with the company, replacing the earlier one. Later, after the Supreme Court ruled in the petitioner’s favour, the deal did not go through. The petitioner cancelled the agreement, alleging default. This led to a civil suit for specific performance by the company.The petitioner through counsel Gauravjit S. Patwalia further told the High Court that in 2016 another person entered into a separate deal with the company. He, in collusion with their representative of the company and behind the petitioner’s back, entered into independent negotiations for purchase of the same property and paid substantial amount to the company. It was admitted position that the petitioner neither participated in, no received any consideration, for the transactions.The person, with an intent to coerce and harass the petitioner, filed multiple criminal complaints. The Ludhiana police conducted an inquiry and refused to register an FIR. They concluded the dispute was civil in nature.“Shockingly, after an unexplained the delay of newly 17 years an FIR came to register on December 24, 2024, at Delhi in respect of the same property despite the entire cause of action arising in Ludhiana, thereby raising serious jurisdictional concerns,” Patwalia contended, adding that the FIR was challenged before the Delhi High Court, where notices were issued.Patwalia contended on the petitioner’s behalf that the matter did not end there. In August 2025, the complainant approached the Punjab Human Rights Commission. A Special Investigation Team was formed. The petitioner added he appeared before the SIT several times. But he was never given a copy of the complaint and the inquiry was conducted behind his back.An ex parte report was submitted on February 27. The report drew adverse conclusions against him. Soon after, on March 10, the Commission directed registration of an FIR. Based on this direction, another FIR was registered on April 12.Challenging everything, including the SIT proceedings, the report, the Commission’s order, and the FIR, Patwalia contended the commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act did not have the power to order registration of an FIR. Its role was only recommendatory.The matter came up before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry Wednesday morning. Senior Advocate Kshitij Sharma, along with advocates Patwalia, Rahil Mahajan and Shubhkarman Singh Gill, appeared for the petitioner. Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok represented the State, while Amrinder Singh appeared for the Punjab State Human Rights Commission on advance notice. The Bench directed counsel for the Commission to seek instructions and listed the matter for May 14.