Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgments Summary

September 2026 

High Court Suspends Sentence of Convict After Over Nine Years of Incarceration

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed an application for the suspension of sentence filed by an appellant-convict undergoing a 20-year rigorous imprisonment term under the NDPS Act. The Court based its decision on the prolonged delay in the appellate proceedings, the reconstitution of the Bench requiring a fresh hearing, the applicant’s status as a first-time offender who had already served over nine years in custody, and the principle of parity with other co-accused who had already received similar relief.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 629 : Deep Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

High Court Upholds Arbitral Award and Dismisses Section 37 Challenge

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an arbitration appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside a District Judge’s judgment that had previously upheld an arbitral award. The Court reinforced that the scope of judicial review under Section 37 is extremely narrow and restricted, prohibiting courts from re-appreciating evidence, entertaining entirely new factual pleas, or substituting an alternative view unless the underlying award suffers from unpardonable perversity or patent illegality.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 630 : Urmila Kumari v. H.P. State Forest Corporation (D.O.J.31.08.2026)

High Court Rules on Second Writ Petitions, Maintainability, and Service Reinstatement

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a pair of cross-writ petitions concerning the appointment of a Part-Time Multi-Task Worker, holding that a subsequent writ petition seeking identical relief is not maintainable when an earlier petition was disposed of as infructuous without an adjudication on merits and without reserving liberty to file afresh. Because the administrative appellate order setting aside the initial selection of Smt. Veena and favoring Prikshit attained finality, the Court ordered Prikshit’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits from his original engagement date.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 631 : Prikshit v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J.31.08.2026)

Stigmatic Probationary Termination: High Court Quashes Bank’s Order Against Probationer Based on Post-Joining FIRs

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a writ petition and quashed a bank’s termination order that abruptly ended a probationer’s service due to criminal cases (FIRs) registered after he had entered service, without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Court ruled that while an employer can terminate a probationer simpliciter for general unsuitability without an inquiry, an order founded on post-joining criminal allegations that casts a stigma and penalizes the employee for misconduct violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 632 : Gagandeep Singh v. State Bank of India & Ors. (D.O.J.31.08.2026)

Establishing Rights of Way: High Court Dismisses Second Appeal and Upholds Appellate Reversal in Easement Dispute

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a plaintiff, upholding the First Appellate Court’s decision to set aside a trial court decree that had favored the plaintiff. The Court ruled that establishing a right of way or easement by prescription requires precise pleadings detailing points of ingress, egress, width, and direction, which were absent here, and noted that admissions by the plaintiff’s own witness regarding an alternative wide public path rendered the claim unsustainable.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 633 : Tara Chand v. Devinder (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Flawed Search and Omission of Key Witnesses: High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Appeal

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment acquitting the respondent-accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Court ruled that fatal omissions such as withholding key spot witnesses, failure to associate independent witnesses despite a busy thoroughfare, irreconcilable contradictions between official testimonies, and the casual loss of the statutory seal thoroughly undermined the prosecution’s case and fortified the accused’s presumption of innocence.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 634 : State of H.P. v. Khem Singh (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Enforcing Parental Obligation: High Court Dismisses Father’s Revision Petition Against Child Maintenance

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a criminal revision petition and upheld a Family Court order that directed an able-bodied father to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his minor daughter. The Court held that an able-bodied father cannot evade his sacrosanct statutory obligation to maintain his minor child under Section 125 of the CrPC merely by pleading unemployment, unless he proves total bodily incapacitation, nor can he resile from solemn undertakings given during mutual divorce proceedings.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 635 : Harish Bhardwaj v. Kumari Trisha (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Condonation of Delay in Income Tax Appeals: High Court Allows Application and Condones Nominal Delay

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed an application filed by the Revenue Authorities and condoned a nominal delay of 31 days in filing an income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that administrative file movements, legal opinions, and festival breaks constitute “sufficient cause,” and emphasized that respondents cannot engage in “merit hunting” or argue the merits of a case during preliminary proceedings for delay condonation.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 636 : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. M/s SBS Biotech Unit-II (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Suspension of Sentence in POCSO Case: High Court Grants Bail Pending Appeal Amid Age Discrepancies and Victim’s Consensual Stance

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed an application for suspension of sentence and released the convicted appellant on bail during the pendency of his appeal. The Court noted that the victim’s statements under Section 164 CrPC, her communication with the Child Welfare Committee, her medical examination records, and photographic evidence prima facie indicated that she had accompanied the appellant of her own free will and solemnized marriage, coupled with substantial discrepancies regarding her exact age.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 637 : Sumit v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Unending Incarceration Without Trial: High Court Grants Regular Bail in POCSO Case

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a regular bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and ordered the release of an undertrial incarcerated for over a year. The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention resulting from the prosecution’s failure to secure the child victim’s presence for testimony—despite statutory mandates under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act requiring trials to conclude within a year—violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 638 : Deepak Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J.01.09.2026)

Overcoming Technical Barriers: High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Appeal on Limitation Ground

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a civil revision petition and set aside an appellate court order that had dismissed a civil appeal as time-barred. The Court ruled that when the High Court previously granted liberty to approach the District Court and directed that the pendency of proceedings before the High Court be counted for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, a lower appellate court cannot dismiss the subsequent appeal on limitation grounds by insisting on a separate Section 5 application or by adopting a hyper-technical approach.]

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 639 : L.R. Kashyap v. Arun Sen (D.O.J.31.08.2026)

MACT : Permitless and Unfit: High Court Mandates Pay and Recover Principle in Motor Accident Claim

This appeal arose from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding the insurance company primarily liable to pay compensation following a fatal accident involving a Tata Sumo transport vehicle. The High Court examined whether operating a transport vehicle without a valid route permit and fitness certificate constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions, thereby exonerating the insurer from primary liability. Upholding the appeal in part, the Court ruled that while the owner committed a fundamental statutory infraction by plying an unfit and permitless vehicle, the insurance company must still satisfy the claim in the first instance under the “pay and recover” principle to protect third-party rights.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 640 : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddi & Others (D.O.J. 02.09.2026)

Judicial Scrutiny of Service Upgradation and Executive Overreach in HIMUDA

This writ petition centered on service disputes within the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA), where a junior Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 4) had his post personally upgraded to Chief Engineer and was subsequently appointed as the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary (CEO), bypassing the senior petitioner. The High Court ruled that while a belated challenge to a personal upgradation after a significant lapse of time cannot be undone due to acquiescence, appointing an ineligible candidate to a higher statutory cadre post without adhering to recruitment rules is illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 as CEO and directed authorities to make a fresh appointment strictly in accordance with the governing recruitment rules.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 641 : Anjori Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Bound by the Decree: High Court Affirms Executing Court’s Powers in Lease Agreement Execution

This civil petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, which dismissed the judgment debtors’ objections and appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a lease deed in terms of a finalized decree. The High Court upheld the executing court’s order, emphasizing that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is strictly correctional and cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or overturn decisions unless they suffer from clear perversity or a flagrant violation of law. The Court reaffirmed that executing courts must enforce decrees strictly as written without going behind them or entertaining rehashed arguments regarding statutory permissions already addressed.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 642 : Subhash Chand and Others v. M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. (D.O.J. 03.09.2026)

Forcible Dispossession and the Two-Month Limitation Mandate Under Section 145 CrPC

This criminal petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) challenged concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner’s complaint concerning land access obstruction and alleged dispossession. The High Court evaluated whether lower courts erred in refusing to invoke jurisdiction under Section 145 of the CrPC, ultimately upholding the concurrent findings because the petitioner’s own pleadings demonstrated that the alleged dispossession had occurred years prior to the police report, thereby violating mandatory limitation requirements.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 643 : Pratap Singh v. Ranjit Singh & Another (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

When a Cheque Bounce Complaint Collapses on Jurisdictional Timelines

This criminal revision petition under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenged concurrent judgments of the lower courts that had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court evaluated whether a complaint filed before the expiration of the statutory payment window following the deemed service of a legal notice was maintainable. The Court ruled that where notice is sent via registered post and not returned unserved, a 30-day presumption applies for deemed service, followed by a 15-day payment window. Because the complaint was filed before this statutory window elapsed, it was legally void and fundamentally ousted the trial court’s jurisdiction.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 644 : Basant v. Virender Singh (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Dishonour of Cheque : Statutory Presumptions and the Legality of Security Cheques Under Section 138 of the NI Act

This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, which had absolved the respondent-accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The High Court examined whether the trial court correctly appreciated evidence recorded by a predecessor judge in a summons-triable case and evaluated the strength of statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 118. The Court ruled that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused, emphasizing that the admission of signatures and issuance of a cheque trigger a reverse onus, and that security or stop-payment cheques do not shield a drawer from penal liability if a subsisting debt exists.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 645 : M/S Himalayan Plastics Ltd. v. Anoop Kumar (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Enforcing Compliance: Time-Bound Execution of Court Directions in Contempt Proceedings

This contempt petition was filed alleging willful and intentional non-compliance of a previous writ court judgment that had directed the competent authority to decide a petitioner’s representation within a specific timeframe while considering a cited legal precedent. With the consent of both counsels, the High Court disposed of the contempt proceedings by granting a final, peremptory extension of four weeks to the respondents to fully implement the earlier judgment.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 646 : Ashok Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and another (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Withdrawal of Contempt Proceedings Upon Suspension of Foundational Orders

This contempt petition was initiated alleging non-implementation of a writ court judgment that had directed respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation in alignment with a prior precedent. When the State counsel brought to light that the foundational precedent relied upon had been stayed by a Division Bench, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the contempt petition, leading the High Court to dispose of the proceedings accordingly.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 647 : Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and another (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Counting Past Service: Regularization of Contractual Employees and Seniority Rights

This batch of writ petitions was filed by Junior Office Assistants (IT) working under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, seeking directions to count their continuous contract service—rendered after selection through regular open market recruitment procedures—towards seniority, promotion eligibility, and consequential service benefits following their regularization. The High Court examined the validity of standard-form contract clauses, the implications of the quashed Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, and established precedents regarding past service. The Court ruled that once an employee is appointed on contract via proper recruitment rules and subsequently regularized without interruption, their past contract service must be counted for all service benefits, seniority, and promotions.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 648 : Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. HPSEBL & Ors. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Expediting Trial Proceedings: Time-Bound Adduction of Evidence Through Mutual Consent

This civil miscellaneous petition was disposed of by the High Court based on the mutual consent of the contesting parties, directing the plaintiff to produce and conclude their entire evidence on or before November 30, 2026. To ensure that this strict deadline is met without administrative delay, the trial court was granted explicit liberty to prepone any hearing dates previously scheduled in the matter.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 649 : Savita Sharma & Other v. Master Abeer & Other (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Voluntary Withdrawal: Closing Appellate Proceedings Upon Counsel’s Instruction

This First Appeal from Order under the Motor Vehicles Act was disposed of by the High Court after the appellant’s counsel sought explicit permission to withdraw the proceedings under instructions. Accepting the statement made at the bar, the Court formally dismissed the appeal as withdrawn alongside all pending applications.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 650 : United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deepak Sharma & Anr. (D.O.J. 08.09.2026)

Limitation Periods and Penalty Clauses in Contractual Security Deposits

This regular second appeal addressed whether a suit for refund of a security deposit is governed by limitation laws and if a forfeiture clause constitutes an unenforceable penalty under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The High Court held that a suit for the refund of security deposited for due performance is governed by the residuary limitation article, requiring action within three years of contract completion or when the refund is demanded. Furthermore, security deposits cannot be treated as earnest money or summarily forfeited upon breach unless actual loss or damages are specifically pleaded and proved.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 651 : H.P. General Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Batra Traders (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Securing Justice Against Atrocities: Evaluating Caste Proof and Acquittals in Criminal Appeals

These consolidated criminal appeals challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Special Judge from charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court held that the provisions of the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked or sustained without a valid caste certificate or formal proof establishing the caste status of both the complainant and the accused. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that inordinate, unexplained delays in reporting crimes foster embellishments, and appellate courts will not interfere with a trial court’s view of acquittal unless it is perverse, impossible, or manifestly illegal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 652 : State of H.P. v. Som Raj & Ors. (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Proving Malice: Essential Ingredients and Burden of Proof in Suits for Malicious Prosecution

This regular first appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution. The High Court held that to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish four essential ingredients: institution of criminal proceedings by the defendant, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and termination of the proceedings in the plaintiff’s favor. The Court emphasized that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically give rise to a presumption of malice or lack of probable cause, and an adverse inference cannot be drawn against a defendant for failing to testify if a valid medical disability or old-age infirmity is established.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 653 : Mahinder Singh and Another v. Devi Ram and Other (D.O.J. 09.09.2026)

Navigating Procedural Lapses: Registry Accountability for Missing Judicial Records

This procedural criminal miscellaneous matter addressed an administrative discrepancy where a filed reply failed to appear on the official judicial file. The High Court directed the court registry to trace, verify, and properly place the missing document on the record prior to the next scheduled hearing.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 654 : Gautam Munjal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Judicial Scrutiny of School Merger and De-notification Policies

This civil writ petition challenged a government notification de-notifying and merging a low-enrollment middle school with a nearby institution. The High Court held that an administrative policy decision to merge schools with critically low student strength—such as 12 students—into a nearby accessible institution is a valid measure to ensure the optimum utilization of resources, infrastructure, and teaching staff, and does not warrant judicial interference under Article 226 in the absence of arbitrariness or restricted access.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 655 : School Management Committee v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Enforcing Compliance: Closing Contempt Proceedings Upon Judgment Fulfillment

This execution and contempt petition addressed the implementation of a prior court judgment where the respondent authorities reported full compliance. The High Court held that when official communications and office orders establish that the directions in the judgment have been successfully fulfilled, the proceedings no longer survive for adjudication and must be closed, provided the consequential financial or administrative benefits are disbursed expeditiously.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 656 : Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (D.O.J. 07.09.2026)

Validity of Registered Power of Attorney, Subsequent Wills, and Bona Fide Sale Transactions

This regular second appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the estate of late Smt. Rajo Devi, involving competing claims over a registered Will, a General Power of Attorney (GPA), and subsequent registered sale deeds. The Trial Court had initially dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, upholding the validity of the GPA, the subsequent revocation Will executed in favor of the defendants, and the ensuing sale transactions. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that the GPA was procured through fraud and that the defendant’s Will was suspicious. Upon further appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the First Appellate Court’s decree, reinstating the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court emphasized that registered documents carry a heavy legal presumption of validity that cannot be casually displaced by mere allegations or suspicion without concrete proof, and that legal heirs possess the standing to challenge voidable contracts.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 657 : Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. Bullu Ram (Deceased), through his LRs Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Ors. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Mandatory Operationalization of Shifted Electricity Lines and the Licensee’s Statutory Duty to Clear Obstacles

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited to operationalize a newly laid single-phase low-tension electricity line and remove an old, hazardous line passing directly over his residential house. Although the respondent Board had shifted and installed the replacement line, they failed to energize it or remove the old poles, citing third-party objections and a lack of a Right of Way (RoW) provided by the consumer. Upon evaluating Sections 43 and 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, along with Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, the High Court held that the primary statutory duty to supply electricity safely and clear any third-party hindrances lies squarely on the distribution licensee, not the individual consumer. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the Board to energize the new line and dismantle the hazardous old lines within six weeks.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 658 : Daya Ram v. HP State Electricity Board Limited and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Electricity : Mandatory Installation Timelines and the Licensee’s Obligation to Clear Third-Party Obstacles

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus to direct the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board to install a three-phase electricity connection for which she had applied and deposited the requisite charges. Despite a lapse of over a decade, the connection was withheld on the pretext that third-party landowners had raised objections, leaving the petitioner responsible for providing a Right of Way (RoW). Examining Sections 43 and 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, alongside Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, the High Court held that the primary statutory duty to execute works, lay lines, and clear obstacles rests strictly on the distribution licensee rather than the individual consumer. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Board to install the three-phase connection within six weeks while clarifying that the Board is free to seek administrative or police assistance from the District Magistrate to resolve any local resistance.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 659 : Veena Thakur v. HP State Electricity Board and Others (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Judicial Scrutiny of Uncorroborated Rape Allegations, Delayed FIRs, and Closure Reports

The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, which accepted a police cancellation report and dismissed her protest petition in connection with an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC. The petitioner alleged that she was forcibly administered liquor and raped by the accused persons in the presence of her friend at a hotel. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the revision, affirming that summoning an accused is a serious judicial matter requiring careful scrutiny of evidence, inherent improbabilities, and independent corroboration. The Court noted that the sole named eyewitness (the victim’s friend) explicitly denied the occurrence of any such incident, that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 18 months in reporting the matter, and that the prosecutrix refused an internal medical examination, making the uncorroborated allegations insufficient to issue process against the accused.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 660 : ABC v. State of H.P. (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Invalidity of Post-Hour Court Orders

The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to challenge an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, which closed their right to cross-examine the complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding. The trial court had passed the adverse closing order at 4:30 PM, after standard court working hours, due to the absence of the petitioners who were misled by an incorrect online case status date and default on the part of their counsel. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court’s order. The Court ruled that proceedings and adverse orders conducted beyond the standard subordinate court hours (10:00 AM to 4:00 PM) are illegal and unsustainable, and that a litigant should not be severely prejudiced or penalized for their counsel’s default or misleading online case tracking records.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 661 : Stoney’s Restaurant & Another v. Mohinder Singh (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Customary Divorce Validity and Will Authenticity: Upholding Registered Testaments Under Hindu Law

The appellants filed a regular second appeal challenging a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge of Chamba, which reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the property in favor of the plaintiff based on a registered Will. The dispute centered around whether an informal divorce deed (Talaknama) executed on stamp paper in a Panchayat dissolved the marriage of the first defendant under the Hindu Marriage Act, and whether a registered Will executed by the deceased Shiridhar was vitiated by suspicious circumstances. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appeal, holding that a customary divorce must be strictly pleaded and proved under law, that an informal Talaknama is invalid for Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, and that a registered Will complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act cannot be invalidated merely due to the presence of a beneficiary or minor contradictions in witness testimonies.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 662 : Kaunto & Other v. Bhindro (D.O.J. 10.09.2026)

Establishing Title and Boundaries: Repercussions of Deficient Secondary Evidence and Unproduced Mutations in Mortgage Redemption

The appellants/defendants filed a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge (Forest) Shimla, which set aside the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ redemption suit and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The dispute concerned whether a mortgaged property had been validly sold to the defendants via an old sale deed described by boundaries, and whether revenue entries and isolated jamabandi notes could establish title without producing the underlying mutation proceedings. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the second appeal, affirming that an admission must be read as a whole and cannot confer title, that the 30-year presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act does not apply to certified copies or registration volumes without a proper foundation for secondary evidence, and that failure to connect boundary descriptions to the actual suit property or produce core mutation records is fatal to a claim of ownership.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 663 : Rajesh Bhatia (Since Deceased) Through His LRs & Others v. Ram Rattan (Since Deceased) Through His LRs & Others (D.O.J. 11.09.2026)

Upholding Human Rights Mandates: Judicial Intervention for Timely Commission Appointments

An employee of M/s Ambuja Cements Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the adjournment sine die of her human rights complaint concerning workplace sexual harassment. The proceedings stalled because the Human Rights Commission lacked the requisite quorum of members, and the State failed to fill vacant statutory posts for over a year. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the State is statutorily mandated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to make these appointments without prolonged delays. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 226, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh to complete the appointment process for the Chairperson and members within six weeks, while issuing interim protection against the petitioner’s transfer until her complaint is finally adjudicated.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 664 : HPHRC and Anr. v. Ritu Sareen (D.O.J. 11.09.2026)

Demolishing Executive Overreach: Upholding the Inviolability of Local Self-Government Elections

This writ petition addressed the legality of an administrative delay by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in convening a meeting to elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Indora. Following the completion of local elections in May 2026 where twenty-six members were elected, the members took their oaths of allegiance on June 8, 2026. However, the official election for the executive heads was stalled indefinitely because the SDO(C) received a third-party police complaint alleging monetary inducements and corrupt practices.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 665 : State Election Commission & Ors. v. Ankush Indoria (D.O.J. 06.08.2026)

Subordinate Communication Cannot Override a Formal Government Notification

This writ petition challenged major penalty disciplinary orders passed against the petitioner, who was serving as a Patwari, by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The petitioner argued that following a formal government notification dated February 22, 2025, issued in the name of the Governor, various revenue cadres (including Patwaris) were converted into a State Cadre, designating the Director, Land Records as the sole appointing and disciplinary authority. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to penalize him. Although the State defended the action based on a subsequent departmental clarification letter issued by the Director, Land Records attempting to preserve the old system until new Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) rules were finalized, the High Court held that a subordinate administrative communication cannot alter or supplement a formal government notification issued by the competent authority. The disciplinary and appellate orders were accordingly quashed, though the State was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings through the proper designated authority.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 666 : Dalip Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

Continuity of Service Entitles Reinstated Employees to ACP Benefits

This writ petition was filed by an employee seeking directions for the respondent-Corporation to release increments under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme after completing 8, 16, and 24 years of service. The petitioner’s services as a Conductor were initially terminated in 2000, but a Labour Court subsequently set aside the termination as illegal, granting him reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority, though without back wages. The respondent-Corporation denied the ACP benefits on the grounds that he was terminated for embezzlement and received no back wages. The High Court held that because the Labour Court granted continuity and seniority, the petitioner is legally presumed to have been in service throughout. Consequently, he is entitled to the ACP scheme benefits, which will be calculated notionally for the past period, with actual monetary benefits restricted to the three years preceding the filing of the writ petition.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 667 : Sh. Harnam Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

Dismissal of Time-Barred Arbitration Petitions After Inordinate Withdrawal Delays

This arbitration case was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute stemming from a 2009 trenching and cable-laying agreement. Although the petitioner had previously initiated arbitration in 2016 and secured the appointment of an arbitrator, he voluntarily withdrew those proceedings at the verge of the award in March 2017. He then waited nearly eight years before filing a fresh Section 11 petition in late 2024. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the claims had become hopelessly stale, time-barred, and abandoned. The Court emphasized that while an earlier withdrawal with liberty was recorded, the statute of limitation continues to run, and the law does not permit parties to subject respondents to indefinite liability by sitting on their remedies for over fifteen years from the original cause of action.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 668 : Tej Singh Thakur v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Another (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

Non-Drawers/Signatories Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheque Dishonor Under Section 138

This batch of criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) sought the quashing of complaints instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) regarding dishonored post-dated cheques. The petitioner, a professional wrestler, had entered into a business agreement with the complainant to run a YouTube channel, but the disputed cheques were drawn from a separate bank account and signed solely by a co-accused (his relative) rather than the petitioner. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the complaints against the petitioner, ruling that a person who is neither the account holder nor a signatory to the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138. The Court emphasized that fundamental ingredients—such as drawing a cheque on an account maintained by the accused—are mandatory to sustain criminal liability, and continuing proceedings against a non-drawer constitutes a clear abuse of the court’s process.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 669 : Deva Thapa v. Diwan Chand and Anr. (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)

Hostel Wardens Permitted to Retain Campus Housing Despite Owning Personal Property

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an office order demanding a penal recovery of Rs. 9,25,790/- as an overstay license fee for a hostel warden accommodation occupied by the petitioner—a retiring university professor who had served as a girls’ hostel warden for nearly three decades. The university argued that because the petitioner constructed her own house in Solan in March 2017, she violated Rule 3 of the University House Allotment Rules, which bars employees who own homes at their place of posting from occupying university housing. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the recovery notice, and ordered the unconditional release of her withheld retirement benefits (gratuity and leave encashment). The Court held that Rule 3 expressly carves out an exception for employees essentially required to stay on campus, and a functional hostel accommodation designated for round-the-clock warden responsibilities cannot be equated with General Pool Accommodation.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 670: Dr. Nivedita Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Another (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

Permitting Secondary Evidence for Wills Attached to Other Judicial Records

This civil miscellaneous petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge a trial court order that permitted the defendant to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The original Will, which the defendant sought to rely on, was already a part of the judicial record in a separate pending case before the High Court, making its physical production impossible. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s order. The Court ruled that where an original document is locked in another official court record, a party is legally justified in seeking permission to lead secondary evidence via a certified copy, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to interfere with well-reasoned interlocutory discretion.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 671 : Prem Chand v. Suresh Kumar (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)

MACT Awards Rendered Against Deceased Parties are Legally Non-Est

This batch of appeals was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act by the National Insurance Company Limited to challenge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awards dated June 2, 2018. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, a key respondent (the driver of the offending vehicle) passed away in June 2015, and no steps were taken by the claimants to bring his legal representatives on record prior to the final adjudication. The High Court set aside the awards and remanded the matters back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Court ruled that any award or decree passed for or against a dead person is a complete nullity because the defect goes to the root of the forum’s authority, necessitating a de novo trial after bringing the legal representatives on record within a strict timeframe.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 672 : National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kushal Singh & Others (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

Protecting Long-Term Anganwari Workers from Ex-Parte Income Invalidation and Administrative Lapses

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an appellate order dated July 27, 2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, which had set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Gadouri (Shamshi). The selection was nullified based on an ex-parte and unverified Tehsildar/Patwari report alleging that the petitioner’s family income exceeded the prescribed threshold. Although a formal termination order was issued in August 2015, the petitioner remained in physical possession of the workspace and continued performing her duties uninterrupted for over twelve years (2014 to 2026) due to an interim status quo order passed by the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned appellate order, and directed the State authorities to confirm the petitioner’s continuity in service with all accrued benefits. The Court held that ex-parte income reports vitiated by procedural violations cannot override a valid selection, and that the State cannot penalize an employee for administrative misinterpretations or delayed judicial proceedings, especially when revised 2023–2024 guidelines would render the petitioner age-bar and educationally ineligible.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 673 : Kamla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

Statutory Bars and Essential Ingredients: Quashing Kalandra Proceedings Under Sections 186 and 189 IPC

This criminal petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash a police report (Kalandra) registered under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with consequential proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. The proceedings arose from an incident where the petitioner allegedly refused a breath analyser test at a drunk-driving checkpoint and engaged in a heated argument, hurling abuses and allegations at the police. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings. The Court held that taking cognizance of an offense under Section 186 IPC on a police report rather than a written complaint by the aggrieved public servant violates the express statutory bar under Section 195 CrPC, and that a heated verbal altercation without an intent to cause illegal harm fails to satisfy the legal definition of a “threat of injury” under Section 189 IPC.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 674: Virender Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (D.O.J. 19.08.2026)

Suspension Orders Lapsed After Expiry of Ninety Days Without Review

This batch of civil writ petitions was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by teachers who were placed under suspension following an allegation of mass copying during 10+2 examinations on March 13, 2026. The petitioners sought the quashing of their suspension orders on the ground that the competent authority failed to review and extend the suspensions within the mandatory 90-day window stipulated under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the continued suspension of the petitioners, declaring the orders invalid upon the completion of 90 days. The Court ruled that an order of suspension automatically lapses if not reviewed and extended within the strict statutory timeline of 90 days, and subsequent review orders passed on or after the 91st day cannot breathe life into or revive an already expired suspension order.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 675 : Kamal Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors. (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Quashing Atrocity Proceedings Initiated by District Monitoring Committee Directives

This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 222 of 2021 registered under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with consequential proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The case arose from an alleged altercation and casteist remarks made during a society election meeting. The investigating agency twice filed closure reports after finding no substantial evidence, but a chargesheet was ultimately filed because the District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee, constituted under Rule 17 of the SC/ST Rules, directed them to do so. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed both the FIR and the consequential trial proceedings. The Court held that the District Level Committee possesses only a supervisory and review mandate under Rule 17 and has no legal authority to straightaway direct the police to file a chargesheet or bypass independent judicial oversight when closure reports have been submitted.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 676: Sunil Kumar & Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Challenging Lok Adalat Awards Under Article 227

 

This civil miscellaneous petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an award passed by the National Lok Adalat, which had modified a trial court order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by reducing the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife from Rs.30,000 to Rs.20,000. The husband sought to set aside the award primarily on the ground that fresh statements were not recorded on the exact day of the Lok Adalat sitting and that the award lacked procedural compliance. The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Lok Adalat award. The Court held that a Lok Adalat award possesses statutory finality and cannot be challenged through ordinary civil or appellate channels; it is open to challenge under Article 226 or 227 solely on exceptional grounds such as lack of consent, jurisdictional error, or fraud, none of which were established since the husband had voluntarily made a clear statement and undertaking during pre-Lok Adalat proceedings.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 677 : Ajay Pal Singh v. Mala Guleria (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Qualification Relaxation: Legality of Departmental Promotions via Consultative Administrative Power

This civil writ petition (transferred from the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal) was filed by a Fisheries Officer seeking to set aside the promotion of private respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries. The petitioner alleged that the private respondents lacked the mandatory one-year diploma/certificate course required under Rule 11 of the Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules, as they only possessed a nine-month training certificate. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the promotion of the private respondents. The Court held that Rule 18 of the R&P Rules explicitly empowers the State Government to relax essential qualifications for any class of posts or persons in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Since the government followed due process—taking into account the candidates’ 30-plus years of service and historical training patterns—and obtained formal approval from the HPPSC before the DPC convened, the relaxation was lawful and unassailable, especially given that the petitioner was not even eligible for consideration at the time the relaxation was granted.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 678: Pankaj Thakur v. State of H.P. and Others (D.O.J. 20.08.2026)

Commercial Eviction, Mesne Profits, and Market-Rate Compensation: Balancing Landlord Rights and Execution Delays

This civil miscellaneous application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the landlord, Amarjeet Ahuja, seeking a direction for the non-applicant tenants to pay use and occupation charges (mesne profits) for a commercial shop in Lower Bazaar, Shimla, following an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The eviction petition, originally instituted in 2008 on the ground of bona fide reconstruction, was decided in favor of the landlord on December 29, 2022, and the tenants’ subsequent appeal was dismissed while the landlord’s cross-objections were accepted. The High Court allowed the application, directing the tenants to pay use and occupation charges assessed at Rs. 500 per square foot per month (amounting to Rs. 65,000 monthly for an area rounded off to 130 square feet) from the date of the eviction order, alongside clearing arrears spanning 44 months within eight weeks. The Court held that once an eviction order is passed, a tenant’s continued possession becomes unauthorized and akin to that of a trespasser, entitling the successful landlord to reasonable mesne profits equivalent to the market rent to compensate for execution delays, and that prior dismissal of a similar application as “infructuous” by the lower appellate authority without a merits adjudication does not operate as res judicata.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 679: Sarita Devi and Others v. Amarjeet Ahuja (D.O.J. 21.08.2026)

Rectifying Pay Discrimination: Grant of Notional 4-Tier Pay Scale Benefits to Himachal Pradesh Forest Services (HPFS) Officers

This civil writ petition was filed by officers inducted into the Himachal Pradesh Forest Services (HPFS) in 1990, seeking the extension of notional benefits under the 4-tier pay scale effective from August 27, 2009, on par with other equivalent services like the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services (HPAS). Although the State Government subsequently implemented the 4-tier pay scale for the HPFS category through instructions dated August 26, 2013, it restricted the financial and actual benefits to take effect only from September 1, 2013, while denying notional benefits from the earlier cutoff date of August 27, 2009, which had been granted to eight other specific services (including HPAS). The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the government’s rejection communication dated November 26, 2014, and directed the respondents to grant the 4-tier pay scale to the petitioners notionally from August 27, 2009, while maintaining actual benefits from September 1, 2013, with a provision for 6% interest if arrears are delayed beyond three months. The Court held that once the State Government voluntarily chose to extend the 4-tier pay structure to the HPFS category, it could not arbitrarily and discriminatorily deny them notional benefits from the date granted to comparable services, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 680: Meera Sharma and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another (D.O.J. 25.08.2026)

Quashing Administrative Rejections Based on Misinterpreted Shortfalls in Daily Wage Working Days

This civil writ petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased original petitioner, a daily-wage Beldar, challenging an administrative office order dated June 22, 2018, which had rejected his claim for the conferment of work-charged status. The rejection was based on the premise that the worker had failed to complete 240 days in each calendar year between 1995 and 2005. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned rejection order, and directed the respondent authorities to confer work-charged status upon the original petitioner from the due date along with all consequential benefits. The Court held that the administrative authority had fundamentally misinterpreted a prior categorical direction of the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal—which had already accepted the applicability of a Division Bench precedent requiring the condonation of minor shortages in working days—as an open-ended mandate to reconsider and re-reject the claim afresh.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 681: Sahib Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. Smt. Gaytri Devi & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 27.08.2026)

Validity of Criminal Prosecution Despite Indemnity Clauses in Supply Contracts

This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking the quashing of FIR No. 59/2022 registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner, who was engaged as an agent to supply Melting Steel Scrap (MS Scrap) to the complainant’s company, was accused of introducing fictitious and non-existent supplier firms, fabricating bogus GST invoices, e-way bills, and KYC documents, and fraudulently inducing the company to make multi-million rupee payments, thereby resulting in massive Input Tax Credit (ITC) liabilities and losses imposed by the GST authorities. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that criminal prosecution is not barred merely because a transaction is rooted in a contract or contains an indemnity clause, provided the allegations prima facie disclose essential criminal ingredients such as active deception from the inception and forgery.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 682: Vinod Kumar v. State of H.P. & Another (D.O.J. 18.08.2026)

MACT: Determining Insurance Liability and Just Compensation

These cross-appeals arose from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award concerning a vehicular accident on August 9, 2011, which caused grievous injuries to the claimant, a government health worker riding as a pillion passenger. The primary issues revolved around whether an insurance company is liable when an accident occurs prior to the policy commencement date despite premium payment a day earlier, whether the “pay and recover” principle applies in the complete absence of a valid policy, and the assessment of just compensation for a government employee. The High Court allowed the insurance company’s appeal and partly allowed the claimant’s appeal, holding that a contract of insurance commences strictly from the date and time specified in the policy issuance, not the date of premium deposit. Consequently, the insurance company was completely absolved of liability, and the compensation obligation was shifted entirely onto the vehicle owner, with minor enhancements for ancillary expenses.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 683: Sangita Anand v. Sandhya Tomar and Others (D.O.J. 14.09.2026)

Permitting Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage for Age Determination in POCSO Cases

This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the State under Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 391 of the old CrPC) seeking permission to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Sections 354A, 354D, 376, and 506 of the IPC. The State sought to place on record the Matriculation Certificate and school records of the minor victim to conclusively establish her age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which had been inadvertently left out by the Investigating Officer during trial despite the availability of birth proof from the Panchayat and Pariwar Register. The High Court allowed the application, holding that investigative oversights do not constitute an “irreparable lacuna” that would bar additional evidence if such proof is essential for a just decision, causes no prejudice to the accused, and provides the defense a full opportunity to cross-examine. Furthermore, taking strict note of recurring lapses regarding age-proof in criminal investigations, the Court issued mandatory directives to the Director General of Police to instruct all Investigating Officers across the State to strictly adhere to Section 94 of the JJ Act.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 684: Kulwinder Singh v. State of H.P. (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Unsafe Convictions in Sexual Assault Cases

This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant-accused challenging his conviction under Sections 457 and 376 of the IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court, POCSO), Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years. The prosecution alleged that the accused broke into the labor quarters on the intervening night of September 20/21, 2018, and committed rape upon a minor victim, though the trial court ultimately found she was not a “child” under the POCSO Act as her age was not proved below 18. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution’s case was severely undermined by material contradictions between the initial written complaint and oral testimonies, significant improvements in the mother’s version, total lack of physical or forensic corroboration (with the SFSL report detecting no blood or semen), and the severe mental retardation (90% intellectual disability) of the prosecutrix, which medical opinions established rendered her incapable of giving a valid statement.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 685: Kripal Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

MACT: Navigating Third-Party Liability and the “Pay and Recover” Rule in Motor Accidents

This motor accident appeal was filed by the owner of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the MACT award which granted compensation of Rs. 3,48,700 to the claimant and granted recovery rights to the insurance company against the owner. The claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries when his motorcycle was hit by a car being driven rashly and negligently. While the owner raised an uncorroborated plea that a third person was driving, and later admitted during cross-examination that he himself possessed no driving license, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award. The Court ruled that where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established due to the absence of a valid driving license, the insurer cannot escape its primary duty toward an innocent third party under a benevolent welfare statute, making the invocation of the “pay and recover” principle legally imperative.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 686: Ajay Kumar & Others v. Jai Singh & Others (arising from FAO(MV) No. 313 of 2024) (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Statutory Supremacy in Veterinary Admissions: The Invalidation of NEET-UG Mandates

This judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addresses the legality of executive communications issued by the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) that mandated using the NEET-UG merit list for admissions to the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) course. The Court quashed these directives, ruling that they unlawfully bypassed Regulation 7 of the Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education (MSVE) Regulations, 2016. Because the statutory regulations were never formally amended to include NEET-UG as an admission criteria, the Court affirmed the right of a private State University to conduct its own competitive entrance examination in the absence of a centralized state or VCI test.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 687 : Abhilashi University v. Union of India and Ors. (D.O.J. 14.09.2026)

Broken Chain: Why Circumstantial Evidence Failed to Sustain a Murder Conviction

This criminal appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenged the conviction and life sentences handed down to the appellants (Dharampal and Chanderpal) under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Because the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitnesses, the High Court undertook a rigorous evaluation of the prosecution’s evidence, including call detail records, recovery memos, disclosure statements, and forensic reports. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances—plagued by missing Section 65-B certificates for electronic data, hostile recovery witnesses, and inconclusive medical evidence—the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment. Emphasizing that suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof, the appellate court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt and ordered their immediate release.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 688 : Dharampal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J. 14.09.2026)

The Invalidation of Preventive Detention Due to Non-Application of Mind and Flawed Advisory Board Review

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged a preventive detention order dated May 4, 2026, issued under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act, alongside a subsequent extension order dated August 3, 2026. The High Court examined whether the detaining authority properly evaluated the petitioner’s ongoing custody status, addressed accurate criminal records, and whether the State Advisory Board fulfilled its independent scrutiny role. Finding multiple factual errors—including referencing incorrect FIRs and ignoring the reality of the petitioner’s ongoing custody—the Court quashed the detention and extension orders to protect personal liberty.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 689: Kuldeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (D.O.J. 14.08.2026)

Mob Clashes: Regular Bail Granted in Attempt to Murder Case

In this batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioners (Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, and Taman Preet) sought regular bail in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, involving charges of attempt to murder and rioting. The High Court examined the sequence of events, which stemmed from an initial traffic altercation and culminated in a scuffle at a hotel where the complainant party confronted the accused. Noting that the firearm was allegedly discharged while the accused was pinned down and overpowered by a mob following initial provocation, and considering that the investigation was complete and pre-trial detention had lasted over two and a half months, the Court allowed the petitions and released the petitioners on regular bail.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 690: Taman Preet v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J. 12.08.2026)

Appeal Against Acquittal in Assault and Grievance Injury Case

This criminal appeal arose from a judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court examined the scope of interference with an order of acquittal. The informant, Surjit Singh, challenged the appellate court’s decision which had set aside the trial court’s conviction of the accused persons (Lal Singh, Anup Kumar, and Kusum Lata) under Sections 323, 325, 506, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that an order of acquittal reinforces the constitutional presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is impermissible unless the judgment is perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 691 : Lal Singh & Others v. Surjit Singh & Another (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

Compensation for Premature Dispossession in Land Acquisition

This civil appeal arose from an award passed by the District Judge (Forests), Shimla, concerning land acquisition for road construction where the State took physical possession of the claimant’s land years before issuing the formal notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed the landowner’s entitlement to use and occupation charges for the delayed acquisition as well as the correct timeline for calculating statutory interest. Relying on established precedents, the Court modified the reference court’s award by granting additional interest by way of damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the year of dispossession (1990) until the Section 4 notification date (May 17, 2007), and clarified that statutory interest should commence from the date of the Section 4 notification rather than the Collector’s award date.

2026 STPL (Web) HP 692 : Mangat Ram v. State of H.P. & Another (D.O.J. 17.09.2026)

MACT: Navigating Just Compensation: Reassessing Multipliers, Future Prospects, and Filial Consortium

In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed challenges raised by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award granting compensation for the death of a 20-year-old bachelor in a vehicular accident. The High Court firmly rejected the insurance company’s belated attempt to introduce a new plea of drunken driving for the first time at the appellate stage without any foundational pleadings before the Tribunal. While modifying the total compensation, the Court clarified critical legal principles regarding the computation of notional income in the absence of documentary proof, the application of future prospects for self-employed individuals under 40, determining multipliers based strictly on the age of the deceased rather than the claimants, applying standard deductions for bachelors, and periodically enhancing conventional heads with triennial revisions.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 693 : Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Uma Devi and Others (D.O.J. 21.09.2026)

Upholding the Shield of Innocence: Why the State’s NDPS Appeal Crumbled

In this criminal appeal, the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the acquittal judgment dated January 8, 2015, passed by the Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu. The respondent-accused had been prosecuted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for allegedly being in conscious and exclusive possession of 12.750 grams of heroin near Sheetla Mata Temple, Kullu, on February 7, 2008. The High Court evaluated the strict parameters governing appeals against acquittal—highlighting the reinforced “double presumption” of innocence—and examined whether the trial court’s view was perverse or impossible. Finding severe contradictions in testimonies, hostile independent witnesses, and a missing resealing certificate under Section 55 of the NDPS Act, the Division Bench upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 694 : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bhawan Sood (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

When Professional Honor Meets Matrimonial Strife: Dissecting Army Complaints and Mental Cruelty

In this family law appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment and decree dated September 28, 2020, passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, which allowed the husband’s petition and dissolved their marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of mental cruelty. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh evaluated the evidence, noting that generalized domestic quarrels or the mere filing of criminal cases do not ipso facto constitute cruelty without proof of malice. However, the Division Bench found that the wife had leveled unproven and serious accusations against the husband—imputing an extra-marital relationship with his sister-in-law and broadcasting these claims through formal complaints to his superior officers in the Indian Army. Citing strict codes of discipline and moral standards in the armed forces, the Court held that such actions inflict grave mental cruelty on a military personnel by damaging his professional standing and dignity, thereby upholding the decree of divorce and dismissing the appeal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 695 : Smt. Raj Kumari v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar (D.O.J. 22.09.2026)

State’s Appeal Fails in Charas Recovery Case

In this criminal appeal, the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the acquittal judgment dated December 23, 2014, passed by the Special Judge, Solan. The respondent-accused was prosecuted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for allegedly being in conscious and exclusive possession of 1 kg 200 grams of charas near Kali Mata Temple, Shamti, on March 8, 2013. The High Court reaffirmed the narrow scope of appellate interference against acquittals, emphasizing that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and cannot be overturned unless the trial court’s view is patently perverse or impossible. The Division Bench noted that the police apprehended the accused at 9:30 PM near populated areas and dhabas yet failed to make any genuine effort to associate independent witnesses. Combined with material contradictions and discrepancies in official testimonies, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 696 : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rati Ram (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Testing Prima Facie Intent in Assault Charges

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner-accused Phool Singh challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, which framed charges against him and co-accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 109 (attempt to murder). The petitioner argued that the medical reports (MLCs) did not indicate life-threatening injuries, that no blood was detected on the recovered pickaxe (Kassi), and that an attempt-to-murder charge was unjustified. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petition, reiterating that at the stage of framing charges, courts are only required to evaluate whether a prima facie case exists based on the record, rather than conducting a threadbare analysis or mini-trial. The Court affirmed that the severity or grievousness of an injury is not a mandatory precondition for Section 109 of the BNS; rather, intention and knowledge coupled with an overt act—such as striking a vital body part like the head with a deadly weapon like a pickaxe—suffices to warrant the charge.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 697 : Phool Singh v. State of HP (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Improbabilities: State’s Appeal Fails in Long-Standing Rape Prosecution

In this criminal appeal originating from an incident in 1999 and an FIR lodged in February 2000, the State challenged the judgment of acquittal dated December 31, 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, which cleared the respondent-accused of charges under Section 376 of the IPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh evaluated the evidence, noting that the prosecution failed to establish the minority of the victim through primary, admissible records, leaving consent as a material factor. The Division Bench heavily scrutinized the prosecutrix’s version, highlighting glaring improbabilities such as concealing a full-term pregnancy from family members, claiming a newborn was born dead and placed in a bed box when medical evidence proved death by suffocation, and a delayed FIR following hospital discharge. Holding that the foundational testimonies of the prosecutrix and her parents lacked credibility and trustworthiness, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 698 : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Des Raj (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Presumption: High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheque Dishonour Revision

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner-accused challenged the appellate court judgment upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for the dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 50,000. The accused contended that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity, that the cash transaction exceeded limits under the Income Tax Act, and that spelling discrepancies in the payee’s name invalidated the complaint. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the revision, holding that once the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, mandatory statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are triggered in favor of the holder. The Court clarified that a cash loan exceeding Rs. 20,000 in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act attracts administrative penalties but does not render the underlying debt illegal or unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the conviction, sentence, and default imprisonment for compensation were affirmed.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 699 : Suresh Sharma v. Jitender Singh (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Digital Extortion and POCSO: High Court Denies Bail in Heinous Minor Abuse Case

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner-accused sought regular bail in connection with an FIR registered at Women Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner recorded a video of the minor victim while bathing, circulated it on Instagram, blackmailed her to strip on video calls, and forced her into a sexual relationship under threats of making the content viral. The petitioner argued for bail based on trial delays, invoking Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory timelines under Section 35 of the POCSO Act are directory rather than mandatory and cannot be used as a right to claim bail. Given the heinous nature of the offense, corroborative digital and forensic evidence from the FSL, and the high risk of witness intimidation since material witnesses are yet to be examined, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to regular bail.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 700 : Susheel Kumar v. State of H.P. (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)

Revisional Limits and Statutory Presumptions in Cheque Dishonour Cases

This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner (accused) challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and sentencing him to three months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,75,000. The High Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that in revisional jurisdiction, the court cannot act as a second appellate court to reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity. The court affirmed that once the execution and signature of a cheque are admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favor of the holder, placing the heavy burden on the accused to rebut them with probable evidence.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 701 : Sanjay Dhiman v. Super Treads & Anr. (D.O.J. 24.09.2026)

Registered Sale Deeds and Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Revenue Errors

This Regular Second Appeal addressed whether civil courts have jurisdiction when a land dispute stems from a clerical error in revenue records rather than a consolidation scheme. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, does not bar civil suits when the root controversy arises from an uncorrected clerical mistake made by revenue officials under the Land Revenue Act rather than an adjudication under the Consolidation Act. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact regarding continuous physical possession, valid execution of a registered sale deed, and proper procedural service cannot be disturbed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 702 : Chuni Lal (Deceased) Through His LR and Another Versus Subhash Chand (Deceased) Through His LRS and Another (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)

Acquittal Upheld Amid Shaky Evidence and Flawed Identifications

This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents (accused) by the Sessions Judge for offences including rioting, wrongful restraint, and murder under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and cannot be overturned unless patently perverse. The Court found the prosecution’s case fundamentally weakened by material contradictions, the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for eyewitnesses who were complete strangers to the accused, falsified lighting claims, hostile independent witnesses for weapon recoveries, and inconclusive medical and forensic reports.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 703 : State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Rahul Negi @ Twinkle and Others (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)

Civil Disputes in Criminal Guise: Threshold Dismissal of Section 156(3) Applications

This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) at the threshold. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh affirmed the dismissal, holding that a magistrate is well within their rights to dismiss such an application if no cognizable offence is disclosed upon perusing the complaint and accompanying documents. The Court emphasized that mandatory procedural prerequisites—such as prior applications to the police under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) supported by an affidavit pursuant to Priyanka Srivastava guidelines—must be strictly fulfilled. Furthermore, because official records consistently reflected the respondent’s parentage and the parties were already embroiled in civil litigation, the criminal process could not be weaponized as a pressure tactic to settle civil disputes.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 704 : Dev Raj Versus Alok Kumar & Anr. (D.O.J. 25.09.2026)