Punjab And Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 to 10, 2022 [Missing Part]

Nominal Index Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences v Kavita and others Aman Lohan and others v. State of Haryana and others Ravi Parkash Sharma v State of Punjab Neelam Devi and another v State of Punjab and another Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Another Jagdev Singh and another v State of Punjab and another Ramesh Razdan And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others and connected matters Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others Mohammad Asif v. Union of India and others Paramjit Singh Saholi v. State of Haryana and others Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana Deva Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Other Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State Of Punjab And Another Anil and another vs. State of Haryana Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab and connected matters Devesh Yadav v. Smt. Meenal Judgments/ Orders of the Week Courts To Ignore Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice If Only One Outcome Is Possible In Facts Of The Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Case Title: Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences v Kavita and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 52 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not entitled to be accepted by the courts unless, it is shown in the facts and circumstances of a case that rights of a party have been prejudicially affected. Accordingly, it held that the rules of natural justice are not rigid and have to be applied keeping in view the fact situation of a particular case. A party claiming violation of the rule must show prejudice especially in a case where the facts are indisputable and only one conclusion is possible. Merely Stating That Parties Want To Live In Peace Not Enough For Compounding Of Heinous Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Aman Lohan and others v. State of Haryana and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 53 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that heinous offenses such as attempt to murder punishable under 307 IPC is not compoundable between parties merely by stating that they have entered into a compromise and want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. The Court further held that without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, the explanation that 'parties want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony' is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offense punishable under section 307 IPC. Direction To Take Voice Sample Of Accused Does Not Infringe Rights Under Article 20(3) Of Constitution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Ravi Parkash Sharma v State of Punjab Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 54 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that directions to take a voice sample of the accused do not infringe his/her rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the petition, challenging the Lower Court's order which directed the Petitioner-accused to give his voice sample. It observed that the infringement of the fundamental right to privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation. "There Can Be No Compromise With Dead Man, FIR U/S 306 IPC Can't Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise": Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: Neelam Devi and another v State of Punjab and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 55 Court held that the family of the deceased is not the only ones aggrieved because the offense is broadly committed against the deceased himself. Court also refused to quash the FIR by stating that there can be no compromise with the deceased. Since an offense under Section 306 IPC is alleged to have been committed which is a heinous offense and Avtar Chand had committed suicide, therefore, it is not just Avtar Chand's family who would be aggrieved, but the offense is broadly committed against the deceased himself. There can be no compromise with the dead man. As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. "The Amendment In The Pleadings, By Way Of Adding Mutually Destructive and Inconsistent Pleas/Reliefs/Claims, Not Permissible": P&H HC Case Title: Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 56 The court while deciding the matter took into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the Trust sold the property to respondent No.2 in contravention of the object of the gift. This very relief along with Para 5-A was sought to be added in the plaint but could not be incorporated though they are material for the proper adjudication of the dispute. The court came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the afore-referred contentions because the relief originally claimed in the plaint and the relief sought to be added by amendment, are...

Punjab And Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 1 to 10, 2022 [Missing Part]

Drishti Yadav

Tags