- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
- /
- Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly...
Punjab & Haryana High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025
Aiman J. Chishti
21 Sept 2025 10:00 AM IST
Nominal Index [Citations 261 - 308]AXXXXX v. XXXXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262XXXX v. XXXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263Sunil v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264Suhail v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266Harpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of Punjab...
Nominal Index [Citations 261 - 308]
AXXXXX v. XXXXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261
Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262
XXXX v. XXXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263
Sunil v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264
Suhail v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265
Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266
Harpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 267
DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 268
Rajesh Kumar Gaba v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 269
KULWINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 270
MUSHTAQ AHMED v. STATE OF HARYANA 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 271
Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 272
Raj Kumar v. Rajender 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 273
Constable Simranjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 274
Atharv Sharma, Minor through his Natural Guardian & Father Sh. Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 275
Jaspal Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 276
Union of India and others v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and another 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 277
Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 278
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 279
Chanchal Mehbub Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 280
Makul @ Mohamad Makul v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 281
RAVNEET KAUR v. BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 282
BIREM SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 283
PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHER 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 284
Colonel Pushpendra Bath v UT Chandigarh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 285
BHISHAM KINGER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 286
Suresh Chand v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 287
Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 288
Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 289
Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 290
RXXX v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 291
Uggar Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 292
RAKHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 293
Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 294
Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 295
BARKHA BANSAL VS. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH & OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 296
XXXX v. XXXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 297
Surender v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 298
KANU SHARMA V/S HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 299
XXXX v. XXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 300
Gurtej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 301
SXXXX v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 302
Arshad v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 303
Jaswant and others v. State of Haryana and others 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 304
Niyaz etc. v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 305
XXX v. XXX 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 306
XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025] 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307
Suresh Kumar Sharma (deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 308
Reports
Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Graduate: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: AXXXXX v. XXXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is a graduate and capable of earning, especially when she is not gainfully employed.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "mere fact that the respondent/wife is a graduate would not itself mean that she can be denied of the Right of Maintenance which is conferred upon her by way of a statutory provision unless the right to seek maintenance can be curtailed under the grounds which have been mentioned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or when her income is so high as compared to the husband and it can be found that she is able to maintain herself, then in that situation she may not be entitled for grant of maintenance."
Title: Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262
Observing that the Punjab Government authorities had already initiated steps, including penalties and rewards for informers reporting incidents of death by use of banned Chinese Dor, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of the second PIL filed to curb the menace.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "it is obvious that steps have already been taken by the concerned authorities by prescribing penalty as well as announcing a reward upto Rs. 25,000/- for informer, informing about an incident of injury or death due to use of Chinese Dor."
Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.
The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.
Title: Sunil v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Air and Water Act does not occasion any disadvantage to the person aggrieved approaching the Authority after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has come into force.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the notification issued by the Haryana Government amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (Water Act) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (Air Act), providing a single-member Appellate Authority.
Title: Suhail v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.
The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.
Title: Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate is not obligated to record the statement of any witness or call the aggrieved party before taking cognizance of an offence or issuing process.
For context, Section 210(c) BNSS states that the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
Harpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 267
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to suspend sentence of a man convicted for possessing 500 grams of heroin who had undergone custody of over 3 years, observing that drug menace, especially involving manufactured drugs, must be dealt with the "utmost strictness".
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It is with profound concern that this Court takes judicial notice of the escalating drug menace that plagues our society, posing an insidious threat to public order, health, and the very fabric of the nation. While the scourge of substance abuse has long been a challenge, the proliferation and consumption of manufactured drugs, particularly cocaine and heroin, have exacerbated this crisis to an alarming degree, demanding an unequivocally stringent response from all pillars of the State, not least the Judiciary."
Title: DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 268
The Punjab & Haryana High Court transferred a cheating case to another district as the accused persons were lawyers in the same Court where the plea was filed, and lawyers at the district court refused to accept a brief against them.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by undue influence or creation of a hostile environment by the opposite party, especially where the accused is an Advocate practicing in the same Court, compromises the foundational principles of fair trial."
Title: Rajesh Kumar Gaba v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 269
In a "deeply troubling conspiracy" case involving a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and revenue officers accused of conspiring to forge documents to garb a trust property, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons.
The petitioner was accused of conspiring with the officials including DSP to forge documents and submit fabricated records related to the alleged dissolution of a society.
Title: KULWINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 270
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a regular bail plea of a wife accused of abetting suicide of her husband, observing that marital discord alone are not sufficient to constitute the offence.
It was alleged that the husband used to remain upset with his wife because she was allegedly involved with another man.
Title: MUSHTAQ AHMED v. STATE OF HARYANA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 271
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a doctor arrested for allegedly mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah in an AI generated video after Operation Sindoor.
Mushtaq Ahmed, an orthopedic by profession, was booked under Sections 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India), 197(1)(d) (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of BNS of 2023.
Title: Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 272
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that street dogs picked up for sterilisation cannot be impounded indefinitely and must be released back to the same location from where they were taken, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (2023 Rules) .
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "the local authorities, have the power to keep the street dogs in the impounding compound, however, it does not empower them, to keep the dogs for an indefinite period."
Apex Court's Judgements Apply Retrospectively Unless Expressly Stated: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Raj Kumar v. Rajender
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 273
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that judgments delivered by the Supreme Court apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The case pertains to application of the recent M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, wherein the Apex Court held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC [Section 2(y) of BNSS], who can file an appeal against acquittal.
Title: Constable Simranjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 274
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by police officials accused in the Lawrence Bishnoi interview from jail case, challenging the order permitting polygraph test on them.
FIR was lodged against jail officials after the High Court took suo moto cognisance of the viral interview of the ganster Lawrence Bishnoi given while he was in custody at Police Station CIA Staff in Punjab's Kharar.
Title: Atharv Sharma, Minor through his Natural Guardian & Father Sh. Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 275
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no changes can be permitted in an admission form once it has been submitted, particularly in the context of competitive examinations. The Court underscored that it is necessary to ensure "expeditious" conclusion of the selection process.
The Court dismissed the plea challenging the Admission Policy wherein the changes in the Admission Form after submission of the application was not allowed.
Title: Jaspal Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 276
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that all parole applications must be decided by jail authorities within a strict timeframe of four months and in case of violation of the direction the convicts may initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned officials.
The Court underscored the plight of convicts who await responses to their parole applications, facing undue delays even in emergency situations and directed to decide such pleas "expeditiously."
Title: Union of India and others v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 277
Reaffirming the rights of military personnel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a soldier who sustained injuries while collecting kerosene oil during 'Operation Rakshak' is entitled to a war injury pension.
"Operation Rakshak" was the Army's counter insurgency and counter terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir which began in 1990.
Title: Ram Vinesh Saw v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 278
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the protection of life and personal liberty is paramount, regardless of disputes over the age of the individuals involved.
The observation was made while dismissing a plea seeking action against the runaway couple for allegedly falsely stating in the protection plea that the girl was a major at the time of marriage.
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 279
Observing that "detaining an accused indefinitely due to the sheer nonchalance of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process," the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in an NDPS Act case involving a commercial quantity.
The accused was in custody for 2 years and 3 months in a case wherein 1.540 kgs of Tramadol—classified as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act was recovered. Since the charges were framed in March 2023, only 03 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined.
Title: Chanchal Mehbub Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 280
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that if an employee knowingly receives salary or financial benefits beyond their legal entitlement, such excess amounts can rightfully be recovered by the employer.
The court emphasised that the landmark State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) judgment—which placed restrictions on recoveries from employees in certain circumstances—does not offer protection in such cases of conscious overpayment.
Title: Makul @ Mohamad Makul v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 281
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused person's silence during the course of an investigation cannot be equated with non-cooperation as right against self-incrimination is constitutionally protected.
The Court refused to reject anticipatory bail in NDPS Act case on the ground the accused failed to disclose certain facts during the investigation.
Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 282
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to entertain a lawyer's plea seeking direction to the Bar Council for the States to provide her financial assistance, for her being an "un-established advocate."
The advocate had sought reimbursement of medical expenses, house rent allowance, personal security officer, travel expenses and an aid to her.
Title: BIREM SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 283
In a development related to the 2017 Gurugram school murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a response from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Haryana Government on a plea filed by a police officer accused of tampering with evidence against the trial court's summoning order.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul issued notice to the Haryana Government and the CBI and adjourned to July 28 as the respondent counsels sought time to file a reply.
Title: PINKY ALIAS PINCKY & ANOTHER v. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 284
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today held that an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be dismissed merely because the accused, lodged in jail, was unable to sign the petition and the Appellate Court ought to decide on merits.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "Considering the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that when the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act and the petitioners have already filed the appeal before the designated forum, the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits, rather than throwing it away on account of the aforesaid defects especially when the removal of same was not within the control of the petitioner No.2, being lodged in Jail."
Title: Colonel Pushpendra Bath v UT Chandigarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 285
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the probe into a Colonel's assault allegations against the Punjab Police.
This comes after the Court noted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) entrusted to probe the case is "creating loopholes to give benefit of doubt to accused Police Officers".
Title: BHISHAM KINGER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 286
Raising concerns over the lack of essential medical equipment in district hospitals, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has asked States and UT Administration to submit a detailed affidavit outlining its policy on basic medical infrastructure.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "What is the medical policy of state as to basic medical infrastructure at every district hospital."
Title: Suresh Chand v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 287
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observed that it is highly improbable for a reasonable or prudent person to carry 2 kilograms of contraband openly in a transparent polythene bag.
The Accused was in custody for a period of over 2 years, 10 months and after framing of charges in May 2023 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined.
Title: Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 288
Facilitating a fair opportunity for the accused to defend themselves can be a valid ground for granting bail, observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing bail in an attempt to murder case.
In the present case, the Court granted regular bail to an accused in attempt to murder case considering that all prosecution witnesses were examined except one witness, namely, the government doctor.
Title: Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 289
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suspension order against a government employee continues to remain in effect until it is expressly revoked by the competent authority in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2019.
Title: Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 290
In a stern rebuke to the Punjab Government, the High Court observed that the State had misused the judicial process by blatantly violating service rules and attempting to justify its actions through a lengthy affidavit. Taking strong exception to the conduct, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the government.
The Punjab Government authorities issued a chargesheet against a Public Works Department officer for an alleged incident that occurred 11 years prior to the date of superannuation. This is in violation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which bar the issuance of a chargesheet for the incident which is more that four years old after superannuation.
Title: RXXX v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 291
Suspecting child trafficking networks, "which now-a days are actively prevalent in the weaker sections of the society", the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant regular bail to a woman accused of giving minor child to men for committing sexual assault.
Justice Namit Kumar noted, "there is sufficient and ample documentary evidence against the petitioner, indicating her involvement in luring and exploiting the minor victim girl and by facilitating and aiding the accused persons in perpetrating the heinous crime of rape upon her."
Title: Uggar Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 292
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on a sale deed, it is the market value of the property at the time of execution of the sale deed—and not the agreement to sell—which is relevant.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "For the purpose of determining the amount of stamp duty on conveyance deed/ sale deed, the market rate prevailing at the time of execution of sale deed would be relevant and not when the parties entered into agreement to sell."
Title: RAKHI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 293
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged an instance of "judicial indiscipline" after an Additional Sessions Judge passed two distinct orders in the same case on the same day. Suggesting "thorough investigation", the Court has directed the Registrar General to put the file before the concerned Administrative judge.
The Additional Session Judge of Faridabad in a forgery case first orally pronounced an order granting interim-anticipatory bail, but later, passed an order on the same day granting absolute pre-arrest bail.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Withdraws From P&H High Court Plea For Suspension Of Sentence In Rape Case
Title: Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 294
Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim on Tuesday withdrew from the Punjab and Haryana High Court his application seeking suspension of sentence in the 2017 rape case.
The self-styled godman was convicted by the Special CBI Court, Panchkula in 2017 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years for committing offences on two women followers.
Title: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 295
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has explained the pre-requisite of granting bail under NDPS Act in case of commercial quantity wherein one of the conditions is that the accused is "not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused in case of commercial quantity unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Title: BARKHA BANSAL VS. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 296
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the statement of a person summoned by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) officials must be recorded during official working hours and in the presence of their counsel. The Court also observed that the summoned person has the right to request CCTV footage of the proceedings.
The developments comes in case of illegal detention of 30-hours, wherein a businessman was kept in in the zonal office overnight and subjected to prolonged interrogation.
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 297
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a husband's plea seeking annulment of his marriage on the ground that his wife had allegedly concealed a pre-marital affair.
It was the husband's case that, prior to their marriage, during a separate meeting, he had categorically asked the wife whether she was in a relationship, to which she had denied. However, after their marriage, a video was posted on a social media platform allegedly showing her in a compromising position with another man.
Title: Surender v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 298
Calling it a “classical case of power abuse,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Haryana Government for denying appointment to a candidate despite his acquittal in a criminal case. The Court noted that the candidate was compelled to approach the court in three separate rounds of litigation to assert his rightful claim.
The candidate was denied the appointment to the post of Constable. During verification process the authorities submitted that an FIR is pending.
Title: KANU SHARMA V/S HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 299
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criterion requiring lawyers to have been engaged in 50 cases per year in last preceding 3 years, in order to appear for the Superior Judicial Services Examination in both states for the post of Additional District Judge.
The plea had challenged Rule11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and a similar rule in Punjab.
Title: XXXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 300
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Family Court established under the Family Court Act do not have jurisdiction to decide the validity of Adoption Deed.
A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "Parliament in its wisdom, did not vest the Family Courts with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters pertaining to adoption, while conspicuously, it has inter-alia conferred jurisdiction qua matters specified under Sub- Section (1) Explanation (g) to such courts, which pertains to a suit or proceedings in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to any minor."
High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounter By Punjab Police
Title: Gurtej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 301
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea as withdrawn by the petitioner, seeking a CBI probe into an alleged fake encounter carried out by the Punjab Police.
The police party was allegedly the same as the one accused of assaulting Col. Pushpinder Singh Bath and his son.
Title: SXXXX v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 302
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR filed by former in-laws of a man citing it as an abuse of the legal process. The court observed that the dowry harassment case, lodged seven months after the couple's divorce and mutual settlement, lacked merit and appeared to be a misuse of the law.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined, "that lodging of the present FIR after about 7 months of the dissolution of marriage in USA will be nothing but pure abuse of process of law."
Title: Arshad v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 303
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police officer who absented himself for more than 300 days from duty, without leave to visit a tantrik (exorcist) for treatment of black magic.
The officer produced certain medical records to justify his absence; however, some of the documents pertained to treatment for black magic by a tantrik (exorcist).
Title: Jaswant and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 304
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking ₹1 crore in compensation for the kin of the deceased in the 2010 Mirchpur Dalit killing case.
For context, In 2010, 254 families of the Balmiki community had to flee Haryana's Mirchpur as a result of the caste-based violence.
Title:Niyaz etc. v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 305
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted three men–convicted of murder by the trial court, citing the absence of a recovered dead body and insufficient proof of the crime.
A driver hired by three men for a journey to Punjab to Uttarakhand went missing with the car. Later the vehicle was recovered from Bihar, but the driver remained untraceable. During investigation, accused Niyaz, Imran and others confessed to having murdered Gian Chand and throwing his body into the Agra canal but the body was never recovered.
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 306
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash a rape case under POCSO Act on the basis of compromise between the victim and the accused.
The man was accused of raping a 13-year-old victim. Allegedly the victim was enticed away by the petitioner and she stayed with him and was recovered after four months by the police from the custody of the accused. The offences involved in the present case are Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of POCSO Act.
Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307
In a significant observation against stereotyping marginalized communities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is arbitrary to assume that individuals living in slum areas are more likely to come into contact with criminals.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a Child In Conflict With Law (CICL) in an NDPS Act case involving 39.7 kg Ganja- commercial quantity, wherein, out of the maximum sentence of three years, he had spent two years in custody.
Title: Suresh Kumar Sharma (deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 308
In a significant interpretation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings unrelated to an employee's official duties cannot be used as a ground to withhold gratuity.
The deceased employee's family was denied gratuity because appeal against acquittal in a criminal case was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court directed authorities to release gratuity and regularise the family pension of a deceased employee within three months, along with 7.5 per cent annual interest, from the date of petition filing.