- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
- /
- Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly...
Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly Digest: May 2024
Aiman J. Chishti
25 Jun 2024 4:05 AM GMT
Nominal Index [Citations 136 - 190]XXX v.XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 136Kailash Chand Soni v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 137Dilip @ Dileep Kumar Tripathi v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 138Ram Mehar Singh vs The State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 139XXXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 140Gopi Chand Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH)...
Nominal Index [Citations 136 - 190]
XXX v.XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 136
Kailash Chand Soni v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 137
Dilip @ Dileep Kumar Tripathi v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 138
Ram Mehar Singh vs The State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 139
XXXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 140
Gopi Chand Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 141
Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 142
Parvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 143
Balbhadur Singh (deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Punjab and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 144
Rachhpal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 145
Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 146
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 147
NEERAJ BHARDWAJ ALIAS NEERAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 148
SUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL YADAV & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 149
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 150
Mahinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 151
Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 152
Vijender v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 153
Hum Bahadur vs. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 154
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE THROUGH B RAMESH KUMAR v. ANIL JINDAL 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 155
SHIVAM SR. SEC. SCHOOL THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NISHANT TANWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 156
Sajan v. Vishal Chaudhary and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 157
RUBY CHAUHAN v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 158
XXXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 159
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 160
SADHU SINGH DHARAMSOT V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 161
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 162
Sandesh v. State of Haryana and another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 163
KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS KEEPA V. STATE OF PUNJAB 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 164
Amit Kumar Pabbi and another v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 165
XXX v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 166
SUZIE ACHAYO @ SHIVONJE V. STATE OF PUNJAB 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 167
XXXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 168
Kavita v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 169
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170
Pappu Giri and Ors vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Panipat, and another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 171
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 172
The Secretary To Govt. Of Punjab, Pwd (B& R), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh And Ors Vs Mohan Singh And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 173
Virender Kumar v. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Credit), Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 174
Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 175
ANUP @ FOJI V/S STATE OF HARYANA 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 176
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 177
Jitender Singh Sodhi and another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [along with other connected petitions] 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 178
Misty Meadows Private Limited Versus Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 179
Harsh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 180
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 181
Jaswant Singh v. UOI & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 182
XXXX v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 183
Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. State of Haryana & Ors.2024 LiveLaw (PH) 184
Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Janki Dass v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 186
Subhash Yadav v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH)187
Naveen v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 188
Jatin v. State of Punjab Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 189
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 190
Judgments
Title: XXX v.XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 136
Observing that "the recent surge in matrimonial disputes motivated by litigious and vexatious spirit, has left the Courts with considerable pendency," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has laid down guiding principles for invoking the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in matrimonial cases.
While setting aside the order of a Family Court which directed to file complaint under Sections 191, 193, 199 and 209 IPC read with Section 340 CrPC, against a wife accused of committing perjury by filing a false affidavit which stated she is an unemployed, the Court observed that, "this Court has recently seen an increase in initiation of perjury proceedings in matrimonial disputes."
Title: Kailash Chand Soni v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 137
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that for purpose of a "survelliance register," the mere acquittal of a person is not enough for the Superintendent of Police to have a reasonable belief with respect to the person being a habitual offender or not.
A surveillance register is a record maintained at the police station to monitor habitual offenders residing within the jurisdiction and certain categories of accused persons for the purpose of maintaining law and order.
Dilip @ Dileep Kumar Tripathi v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 138
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to persons accused of taking Rs. 8 Crore to bribe Supreme Court's Lodha Committee and SEBI officials for getting necessary clearance for the property to be transferred at a cheap rate.
While granting bail to two of the accused persons, Justice Deepak Gupta noted, "As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that in the entire FIR, there is no reference of any property details, which were allegedly shown to the complainant party and which was subject-matter of any alleged deal. No agreement to sell has been produced to show any deal struck between the complainant and the accused party."
Case Title: Ram Mehar Singh vs The State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 139
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Namit Kumar held that a workman cannot claim promotion at a date when his services were not regularized.
The bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman who was allegedly not promoted by the Management despite being in a higher position in the seniority list. The suit for declaration was also filed 10 years later from the date of the impugned order, which was deemed to be time-barred.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 140
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50 thousand on a woman who failed to turn up before the Magistrate to record her statement about the settlement of the matrimonial dispute after taking maintenance from her husband.
While setting aside the FIR lodged against the husband for cruelty and allegations of harassment on account of dowry and Istridhan, the Court observed, "continuation of proceedings in the impugned FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Courts"
Title: Gopi Chand Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 141
Dealing with a "unique prayer" seeking fifteen days' advance notice in case the investigator proposes to arrest the accused in a corruption case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that if a pre-arrest bail plea is filed and investigators take a stand that they do not intend to arrest, then the Court can direct them to inform the accused about their intention so that later they cannot "play tricks on a person's liberty".
Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 142
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction under Article 226, focused on rectifying legal errors rather than factual disputes, and highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of lower courts and tribunals.
Title: Parvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 143
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50 thousand on a woman who failed to turn up before the Magistrate to record her statement about the settlement of the matrimonial dispute after taking maintenance from her husband.
While setting aside the FIR lodged against the husband for cruelty and allegations of harassment on account of dowry and Istridhan, the Court observed, "continuation of proceedings in the impugned FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Courts"
S.52A(2) NDPS Act | Merely Showing Sample Was Drawn In Presence Of Gazetted Officer Not Sufficient Compliance, Need To Prove Presence Of Magistrate: P&H High Court
Title: Balbhadur Singh (deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 144
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared a notification deleting clause of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as "unconstitutional" observing that riparian land owners will be entitled to alluvion deposits.
The Court said that deleting Section 2(g)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 196 is liable to be declared to be ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.
Findings Of Inquiry Officer Are Not Binding On Punishing Authorities: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rachhpal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 145
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Namit Kumar held that the punishing authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 146
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others, held that the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts cannot be employed to prolong an employee's tenure beyond the period specified as per their accepted date of birth by the employers.
Punjab & Haryana HC Declines Interim Relief To Bank Opposing Election Duty Of Its Employees, Says It's Imperative To Uphold Democracy
Title: NEERAJ BHARDWAJ ALIAS NEERAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 148
Observing that "teaching in a college is a responsible job", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government to take steps to relieve professors who are teaching without possessing the minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Title: SUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL YADAV & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 149
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged for abetment to suicide against a man who was allegedly "pressuring" the deceased to return the money lent.
While setting aside the FIR, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "Where a person succumbs to the pressure of his debt and the creditor is taken as an abettor to his suicide simplicitor, the legitimate interest of a person asking for his own money in a reasonable manner would be harmed in every such case."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 150
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a wife's plea challenging the divorce order granted to the couple under the Hindu Marriage Act, observing that expecting her husband to leave his aged mother of around 75 years, and his sister of unsound mind unattended, amounted to "cruelty."
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "It needs no reiteration that when one enters into matrimony, one surrenders a part of one's absolute freedom for the good of both and for the harmonious life of two alongwith their children (if any). Therefore, one should adjust his/her life pattern in the light of his/her marital obligations."
Mahinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 151
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that "non-availability of some documents cannot become the ground" for depriving an employee of his pension.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined that "merely because of the inter departmental communication and non-availability of some documents cannot become a ground for depriving of an employee of his pension. Pension is a Constitutional Right of Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No employee can be deprived of his right to property except with the authority of law."
Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 152
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the State Government shall be at liberty to take a decision for continuation of the Commission constituted to probe Gurugram land deal scam involving former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
Justice Anil Kshetrapal said that, "When the Commission has not ceased to exist, it can be revived by the appropriate Government for the fulfilment of its purpose, as it will be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act (the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952)."
Title: Vijender v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 153
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected bail of a man accused of cheating by taking money for assurance of visa and work permit at abroad to complainant's children, observing that the way he has defrauded gullible complainant "points towards the dangerous trend of the revival of thugee."
Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "Although the complainant also knew that they were paying money to get a Visa through illegal means, and undoubtedly, later on cried foul, it is just like the kettle calling the pot black, but a con cannot seek bail because of the victim's stupidity."
Hum Bahadur vs. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 154
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma, while deciding Civil Writ Petitions in the case of Hum Bahadur vs. State of Haryana and others, held that Employees are entitled to an annual increment on the last day of their service for the preceding year, irrespective of their date of retirement.
Case: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE THROUGH B RAMESH KUMAR v. ANIL JINDAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 155
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the bail orders granted in serious fraud cases under the Companies Act (the Act), observing that "mere non-compliance of the formality" under Companies Act Rules cannot be construed to be the breach of the mandate carried in Section 212(8) of the Act of 2013, when theaccused person is not formally arrested.
Section 212(8) of the Act states that if the Director, Additional Director or Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) authorised on this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of any offence punishable under sections referred to in subsection (6), he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
SHIVAM SR. SEC. SCHOOL THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NISHANT TANWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 156
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed as non-maintainable a pre-arrest bail application moved by a school in a fraud case.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari while dismissing the plea said, "...being totally antagonist to the real persons, a juristic person cannot be put behind bars. When no mechanism to put a juristic person behind bars has yet been evolved, therefore, there arose no occasion for a juristic person to apprehend arrest."
Title: Sajan v. Vishal Chaudhary and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 157
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the single judge's decision to the effect that a certificate issued by the Bar Association of the concerned Court would qualify as proof of experience at the Bar.
The development came after the Punjab Government's decision to direct the selected Deputy District Attorney (DDA) and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) candidates to produce court orders in order to prove their experience at the Bar, was challenged before the High Court.
Title: RUBY CHAUHAN v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 158
Expressing concern over rising number of cases relating to appointment of teachers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that it is unfortunate that teachers, who are nation builders are fighting on roads or courts for their rights.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "a number of petitions are coming up before this Court on account of contractual, ad hoc or temporary appointment of teaching staff by respondent. Education is foundation of every country and teachers play vital role in nation building. It is unfortunate that teachers not only of respondent organization but of States are fighting on roads or in the courts either for their appointment or terms and conditions of service. The respondent ought to make appointments on regular basis and avoid appointment on contract, temporary and ad-hoc basis."
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 159
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a false allegation of sexual assault by a wife against a husband's relatives amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce.
A division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "Levelling the allegations of sexual assault against all the male members of the family and the factum of them having been found innocent during the investigation, clearly amounts to cruelty."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 160
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 34-year-old man accused of stalking and brandishing a gun at a girl, observing that the act "requires active deterrence."
Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "A man who is hounding a young female while brandishing a gun, poses a threat which can become a cause of disquiet and pernicious trauma for the victim as also her family. Such acts require active deterrence lest these may vitiate the social civic order and fabric of Such acts require active deterrence lest these may vitiate the social civic order and fabric of Society."
Case Title: SADHU SINGH DHARAMSOT V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 161
Relying on Supreme Court's order granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to campaign for the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim-bail to Punjab's former Forest Minister Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case.
Justice Vikas Behl said, "This Court does not doubt the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that he being a five time Ex.-MLA, having held the rank of a Cabinet Minister, wishes to campaign for his political party with whom he has been associated since 1992. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had responded to every summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate and had not skipped any summons. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the argument raised on behalf of respondent-ED to the effect that the petitioner does not deserve the same benefit as has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal (Supra), is liable to be rejected and the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case deserves to be released on interim bail for a limited period...
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 162
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the ex-parte dismissal of a divorce plea filed by a husband, observing that the husband failed to fulfil basic financial responsibilities which amounts to cruelty and desertion.
The husband alleged that wife has left her matrimonial house along with their child, which amounts to cruelty. However, the Court found it is husband who had deserted and committed cruelty by failing to maintain her and the child.
Title: Sandesh v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 163
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently said that the prosecution can never be allowed "to fill up the lacuna by film plea under Section 311 CrPC and the Court's determination of the application should be based only on the "test of essentiality of evidence."
According to Section 311, "any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS KEEPA V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 164
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) , observing that there was no evidence that magistrate was present when the sample was drawn from the bulk, hence the contraband produced by the prosecution cannot be considered as a "primary evidence."
Referring to Section 52 (4) of NDPS Act, Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra observed, "the mere production of the certified inventory in Court, may not become primary evidence, but would become so only when at the time of drawings of the representative parcels before the learned Magistrate concerned, the apposite laboratory testings are then done, either through the learned Magistrate personally travelling along with the representative parcels, to the laboratory or his deputing a gazetted officer along with an empowered police officer to travel to the laboratory for the relevant testings being made there."
Title: Amit Kumar Pabbi and another v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 165
Visa thugs are making mockery of public aspirants and needs to be dealt sternly observed the Punjab & Haryana High Court, while rejecting a pre-arrest bail plea of a travel agent who were accused of defrauding a man by taking Rs.50 lakhs to process Visa to send his children to Canada for employment.
Title: XXX v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 166
Observing that if the child is born "shall be a reminder of trauma and agony she had to undergo", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has allowed the termination of pregnancy of a married woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted by her husband.
Title: SUZIE ACHAYO @ SHIVONJE V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 167
Observing that "it cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction of a Kenyan woman in a drugs case after it found that she did not understand the language in which police communicated with her.
Justice Deepak Gupta said, "It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted. The entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party."
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 168
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Sessions Court can cancel anticipatory bail granted by High Court only on account of subsequent event but cannot adjudicate upon "veracity of the High Court order".
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A Sessions Court has power to cancel an anticipatory bail granted by High Court or earlier granted by it. However, the Sessions Court can cancel anticipatory bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting such bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors of akin nature."
Title: Kavita v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 169
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that utterances made in a moment of anger or emotion cannot be deemed instigation for abetment of suicide, as mens rea is an essential element to constitute the offence. It thus set aside the conviction of a wife under Section 306 IPC booked for abetting the suicide of her husband.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "Utterances made in a moment of anger or emotion cannot be deemed instigation. It is also important to acknowledge that individuals vary in their sensitivity and temperament. It is not solely the feelings of the deceased that would matter, but most importantly, the intention behind the act of the accused as to whether he actually intended to drive the deceased to suicide would also have to be discerned."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld divorce granted to ahusband on the ground of cruelty committed by wife wherein she was convicted for committing murder of her minor son along with her alleged paramour.
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "The involvement and ultimate conviction and sentence of the appellant in such a gruesome crime along with her accomplice i.e. said Gautam (respondent No.2 in the divorce petition) is sufficient to hold that the respondent-husband has been treated with cruelty by her."
Case Title: Pappu Giri and Ors vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Panipat, and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 171
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that in the absence of any material in the shape of the affidavit, showing the need for the transfer of the workman from the original place to a new place, it cannot be termed that the decision taken by the Management is fair one and beyond any doubt
Case Title: The Secretary To Govt. Of Punjab, Pwd (B& R), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh And Ors Vs Mohan Singh And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 173
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth directed the Public Works Department (PWD) of Chandigarh to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the Workman who was unjustly terminated from service while his juniors were retained. The High Court noted that this constituted a violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Virender Kumar v. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Credit), Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 174
Observing that the case is "unfortunate and shocking", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.10 Lakh on a Bank for holding retiral benefits of its employee for 40 years over allegations of embezzlement and violating natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Title: Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 175
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that it is mandatory for holding inquiry before dismissing a police officer in accordance with Article 311 of the constitution. As per Article 311, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under it, shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
Title: ANUP @ FOJI V/S STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 176
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while granting bail to a dacoity with murder convict has directed him to possess a smart mobile phone and share his location with the local police.
A division bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said, "it is directed that while on bail the applicant-appellant shall own and possess a smart mobile phone which shall be kept on at all times; the phone shall always be with the applicant-appellant, he shall share the number of the phone as also his location with the SHO of the area where the applicant-appellant normally resides; he shall mark his attendance on 1st of each month in the police station and that he shall also not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without the prior permission of the SHO of such police station."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 177
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that events subsequent to filing of divorce plea can be considered by the Court to grant divorce.
The Court noted that while the divorce plea filed by the husband was pending, he, along with his family, was acquitted in criminal cases lodged by the wife.
Jitender Singh Sodhi and another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [along with other connected petitions]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 178
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that when proceeding under Negotiable Act (NI Act) is not debt then it cannot be stayed under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
According to Section 96 of the IBC, during the interim moratorium period, any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of 'any debt' shall be deemed to have been stayed.
Case Title: Misty Meadows Private Limited Versus Union of India and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 179
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the search and seizure were conducted and an assessment order was passed by invoking Section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the AY 2006-07 to 2012-13, a fresh order without conducting a search and seizure operation would not be sustainable in law.
Title: Harsh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 180
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea challenging a no-confidence motion passed against the Vice President (VP) of Haryana's Municipal Committee, Uklana, observing that he waived off his right by participating in the fresh elections held for the post of VP.
The petitioner had also sought a stay against holding fresh elections to the post of VP.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 181
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of persons accused of committing gang rape, observing that the testimony of the prosecution is not sufficient to convict in the absence of corroboratory evidence.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra said, "we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court while appreciating the entire evidence in its right perspective, has rightly held that owing to all the reasons, it is unsafe for the Court to rely upon the solitary testimony of victim without any corroboration which does not exist on record and therefore, prosecution remained unsuccessful to prove allegations against accused persons."
No Illegality: High Court Dismisses Punjab AAP MLA Jaswant Singh's Plea Challenging His Arrest By ED
Title: Jaswant Singh v. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 182
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a drugs case wherein no evidence was produced that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act facilitates the Central Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of the seized narcotic substance. Sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates a competent officer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs with adequate particulars. This has to be followed through an appropriate application to the Magistrate concerned for the purpose of certifying the correctness of inventory, taking relevant photographs in his presence and certifying them as true or taking samples in his presence with due certification.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 183
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the divorce decree granted for committing mental cruelty upon husband observing that, it is unreasonable to expect a spouse to meticulously document every instance of cruelty with the forethought that it may be needed as evidence in a future divorce proceeding.
While dismissing the appeal against the divorce decree, the Court rejected the contention that the allegations of mental in the divorce petition should be specific to time, incident and place and not general in nature.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Gurmeet Ram Rahim In Ranjit Singh Murder Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 184
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the Ranjit Singh murder case.
A CBI Court in Haryana's Panchkula in 2021 had sentenced him and four other accused to life imprisonment after they were convicted for hatching conspiracy to murder the former Dera manager Ranjit Singh in 2002.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra allowed his appeal against conviction under Sections 120-B, 302, 506 of IPC.
Title: Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 185
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a slew of directions with respect to Aadhaar Authentication Services in all the court premises, observing that the practice of "professional sureties" is increasing because courts do not release accused persons on bail on personal bonds.
Justice Pankaj Jain said, "The professional sureties have become the norm as the genuine sureties are wary to encumber their property due to prolonged trials. Delay in trials is leading to a situation where genuine surety is being pushed out by professional surety. Just like it is famously said, "bad money keeps good money out of circulation". The other reason for mushrooming of professional sureties is the practice being adopted by the criminal courts of insisting upon the sureties and not releasing accused on personal bonds."
Title: Janki Dass v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 186
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a drugs case wherein no evidence was produced that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act facilitates the Central Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of the seized narcotic substance. Sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates a competent officer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs with adequate particulars.
Title: Subhash Yadav v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH)187
Observing that school cannot "play the blame game", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the Director of a school whose bus met with an accident allegedly because the driver was drunk, in Haryana's Mahendergarh.
On April 11, in a dreadful accident, 6 students lost their lives and several were injured when the school bus driver, who was allegedly drunk, rammed the bus into a tree.
Title: Naveen v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 188
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a nodal officer's clerk under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, [PNDT Act] who allegedly in collusion with the officer, demanded a bribe from a doctor to settle the notice issued to him, under PNDT Act.
Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, "the Nodal Agencies under the PNDT are supposed to work with the highest standards of morality, with a strong and unshakeable sense of responsibility, and have to be bold enough to work towards curbing female foeticide, which has led to falling female-gender ratio in the North Indian population. "
Title: Jatin v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 189
Taking a "broader view", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that there is no bar under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) to grant bail to Child In Conflict with Law (CICL).
Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "Once a protection is granted to adults as such under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground of apprehension of arrest, we do not seem any tangible reasons as to why the moment a juvenile is under the threat of apprehension, why the benefit of the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. should be denied."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 190
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a man accused of committing rape on pretext of false promise to marry the alleged victim, observing that the failure on the part of the accused to fulfill his promise "cannot be construed to mean that the promise itself was false."
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that, "there is no allegation in the testimony or the statement of the victim that when the appellant promised to marry her, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her."
