Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly Round Up: March 2024

Nominal Index [Citations 65 - 101]Axx v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 65XXX v.XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 66KARAMJEET KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 67Savita v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 68Vinit Yadav v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 69Abhinav Kiran Sekhon v. State of Punjab and another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 70BHUPENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 71Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandh v. UOI & Air. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 72Amrik Kaur v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 73State of Punjab v. Baljinder Kumar @ Kala 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 74Sanjeev Singh v. Rohit Hurria and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 75XXX v.XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 76Rajinder Singh Bhullar v. Ranjit Singh 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 77XXX v. State of Punjab and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 78State of Punjab and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 79MAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 80XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 81Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 82Sarvesh Devi v. State of Haryana and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 83Gurinder Pal Singh @ Tinku v. ED 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 84XXX v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 85Mukul Garg v. CBI & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 86JAGDISH @ KALU NATH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 87XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 88Roma Rani v. State of Punjab and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 89ED v. Narinder Khillan 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 90M/S Shri Balaji Agro Industries V/S State Of Punjab And Another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 91Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 92Anjana v. Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 93XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 94Jyoti Bala v. State of Punjab and others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 95Harey Ram v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 96GAUTAM SEHGAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 97Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & others 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 98Sikandar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement and another 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 99X v. State of Haryana and ors.2024 LiveLaw (PH) 100M/S Dharam Pal Maddar And Sons Vs Union Of India Through Senior D.E.N. Iii Drm Office Northern Railway, Ferozepur. 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 101Reports:[POCSO Act] Mandatory For Any Person Having Knowledge Of Offence To Inform Police Authorities: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: Xxx v. State of Haryana & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 65The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that any person knowing about the commission of an offence against a child under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act must inform the police or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SPJU) irrespective of whether the concerned person is a parent of the child or friend. The Court was hearing a plea of a victim's mother seeking quashing of an application pending before the trial court to add her as an accused, for failing to report to to report the sexual harassment of her son to the police.While refusing to quash the application, Justice Deepak Gupta said, "The use of the word 'shall' in Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act makes the intention of the legislature quite clear that it is mandatory for any person having knowledge of the offence to inform the Special Juvenile Police Unit [SJPU] or the local police. It is irrespective of the fact as to whether the concerned person having knowledge of the offence is part of some institution or the parent of the child or a friend etc."Limitation Act | It Is Not Length Of Delay But Explanation Which Is Relevant For Considering Condonation: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: XXX v.XXXCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 66The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that in the plea for condonation of delay under Limitation Act, "It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration by a Court."Justice Sumeet Goel explained that, "A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adiudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation."Victim Of Cruelty Cannot Be Blamed For Abetment Of Suicide Of Accused Because Of Complaint Made: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: KARAMJEET KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 67The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the victim of cruelty who made complaint cannot be held responsible for abetment of suicide of the accused. Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "it cannot be accepted that when a person suffering from cruelty makes a complaint and later on the alleged accused commits suicide then the victim becomes responsible for the extreme step." The Court was hearing an appeal against acquittal of a woman...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly Round Up: March 2024

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags