Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49Nominal Index:Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76Pramod Kumar and Another V/s Hir Chand, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 77Manik Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 78Vandana Kumari V/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 79State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Daleep Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49
Nominal Index:
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76
Pramod Kumar and Another V/s Hir Chand, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 77
Manik Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 78
Vandana Kumari V/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 79
State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Daleep Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 80
Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College vs. Padam Kumar,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 81
Pankaj Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Other.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 82
Rajesh Kakkar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 83
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR and a Magistrate's order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, holding that a complainant cannot directly approach the Magistrate without first complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 154(1) CrPC of furnishing information to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing three connected petitions challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. in an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar and Another V/s Hir Chand
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Kalpa, directing removal of an obstruction from a pathway allegedly used by villagers for decades, holding that the Magistrate had merely protected an existing right of user under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had not adjudicated any question of ownership.
Justice Sandeep Sharma Remarked that: "...learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having taken note of report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sangla, directed the petitioners to remove the obstruction, erected by them in the path in dispute, but he nowhere decided the question of title, which admittedly can be decided by the Civil Court and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate."
Case Title: Manik Kumar V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 78
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the proprietor of a liquor bottling unit accused of illegally transporting Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), holding that transportation of 400 cases under a valid permit could not attract prosecution under Section 39 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act merely because some bottles bore incorrect batch numbers due to a labelling error.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “400 boxes of IMFL were being transported under valid permit and some of the bottles which were found of different batches, though was of Batch No.15, but labour responsible for labelling the Batch number wrongly stamped Batch Nos.9 and 14. On account of aforesaid discrepancy, if any, offence under Section 43 of the Act can be said to have been committed...”
Case Title: Vandana Kumari V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 79
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that ex-officio members, including Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), do not possess a right to vote in elections for the offices of President and Vice-President of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: "There is no specific right given to ex-officio members to cast vote for the election of President and Vice-President of the Municipal Committee. Rather, ex-officio members have been impliedly and expressly excluded from the election process of the President and Vice-President as evident from Rule 2(d), Rules 88 to 92 of the H.P. Election Rules and Sections 22 and 25 of the H.P. Municipal Act."
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Daleep Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 80
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that a teacher who received a national award (Indira Gandhi NSS Award) from the President of India is entitled to the benefit of two years' extended service/salary increment, and the State cannot deny it based on the award being under a different scheme.
Case Title: Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College vs. Padam Kuma
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 81
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that termination of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service without complying with disciplinary proceedings or notice is illegal, and abandonment of service cannot be presumed in such case.
Case Title: Pankaj Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Other.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 82
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on an ITBP constable for maintaining a consensual illicit relationship with the wife of his superior officer was disproportionate in the peculiar facts of the case.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi remarked that: "Once the superior officer had been held guilty of preparing the CD with the help of his laptop and forcing his junior to enter into the acts of misdemeanor, the present appellant cannot be imposed a grave punishment of removal from service."
Case Title: Rajesh Kakkar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 83
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay in investigation or filing of the charge-sheet, unless the accused demonstrates that such delay has caused prejudice affecting a fair trial.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: "Thus, while the delay is substantial and regrettable, the Court is not persuaded that it infringes the Petitioner's right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 in a manner warranting the extraordinary relief of quashing the FIR. The test is whether the delay has caused such prejudice to the accused as to render the trial unfair or oppressive… thus, the delay, though regrettable, has not translated into any apparent denial of a fair trial and, therefore, does not warrant the extraordinary relief of quashing the proceedings."