Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up: August 15- August 20, 2023

Judgments

1.Immoral Trafficking Cases Rising In Chandigarh, Consider Framing Guidelines For Spas, Massage Parlours: Punjab & Haryana HC To Authorities

Case Title: Nagaraj T @ Charles v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 140

Observing that cases under the Immoral Trafficking Act are rising in Chandigarh, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has suggested that the authorities should contemplate formulating guidelines for the operation of spa/massage centers, similar to those framed by the Delhi Government.

The bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, “Keeping in view the fact that cases under the Act (Immoral Trafficking Act) are growing in U.T. Chandigarh; therefore, in order to curb this menace, there would be no harm if the authorities may think about the similar guidelines (GNCT of Delhi’s guideline on operation of Spa/massage centres) for the City Beautiful.”

2.Insufficient Evidence To Link Accused To Death Of Deceased Found In His Premises: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Murder Convict

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 141

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently acquitted a murder convict sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019, on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence. The deceased was found dead in the premises of one Dinesh who was accused of kidnapping him for extorting land and money from his father.

3.Reusing E-way Bills Demonstrates Intention Of Tax Evasion: Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Penalty Against Transporter

Case Title: M/s Bright Road Logistics Versus State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 142

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the penalty against the transporter and ruled that reusing e-way bills demonstrates the intention of tax evasion.

The bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan has observed that the ‘intention to evade payment of tax’ is an essential ingredient for initiating proceedings against a person under Section 130. The transporter had tried to reuse the e-way bills and the tax invoices; as such, the intention to evade the payment of tax is impliedly proven on record.

4.P&H High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Actor-Comedian Khyali In FIR Over His Alleged Remarks Against Maharishi Valmiki

Case title - Khyali Ram vs. State of Punjab [CRM M - 39814-2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 143

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to actor-comedian Khyali Ram in an FIR lodged against him for his alleged derogatory words against Maharishi Valmiki.

The bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat granted him bail on the condition that he shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

5.Article 21 Doesn't Cease If People Of Same Gender Decide To Live Together: P&H High Court Grants Protection To Lesbian Couple

Case title - Pooja and another vs. State of Punjab and others [CRWP No.8041 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 144

Observing that Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted police protection to a same-sex live-in couple.

The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara passed this order while dealing with a protection plea filed by a major lesbian couple who have been staying together in a live-in relationship for the last four years.

6.Change In Bench Composition After Conviction But Prior To Sentencing No Ground To Seek Fresh Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sheela Vs. Brahamjit and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 145

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that a fresh hearing is not required when the composition of the bench changes after conviction order, especially when no prejudice is caused to the parties.

Other developments

7.Should Runaway Girl, Married Against Parents' Wishes Be Prohibited From Raising Harassment, Dowry Demand Complaint? Punjab & Haryana HC Asks

Case Title: Parneet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Recently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said it needs to consider whether a runaway girl, married against the wishes of her parents, should be prohibited from raising any complaints of harassment for dowry demand.

The bench of Justice Alok Jain said, “...question needs to be posed as to whether the girl, who has run away from her house and got married to a person against the wishes of her parents, should be prohibited from raising any complaint, at least, on the premises of being harassed and for demand of dowry.”

8.Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice On PIL Against Unauthorised Installation Of Statues At Public Places

Case Title: Devender Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation ("PIL") wherein a resident of Rohtak has sought the removal of unauthorised statues installed at public places in Haryana, in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs State of Gujarat and Ors.

9.High Court Issues Notice On Plea Filed Against Punjab Govt's Decision To Dissolve All Gram Panchayats

Case Title: Sarabjeet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors

The Punjab & Haryana High Court today issued notice on a plea filed against Punjab government’s decision to dissolve all the Gram Panchayats in the State.

A bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has directed the State to file its reply within 10 days.

10.Nuh-Gurugram Demolitions: High Court Adjourns Hearing, Allows Haryana Govt To File Reply

Case Title: Court on its own Motion v. State of Haryana

A bench comprising Chief Justice RS Jha and Justice Arun Palli allowed AAG Deepak Sabharwal's request to file a reply. "File in the Registry," he said while adjourning the matter.

11.Nuh Demolitions Carried As Per Law, No Particular Community Targeted: Haryana Govt Tells High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Haryana's Nuh, Dhirendra Khadgata has said that no demolition activity in the area was carried out without following the procedure of law. He further said that while removing encroachments/ unauthorised constructions, the government never adopted "pick and choose policy" and that too on the basis of caste, creed or religion.