The High Court of Punjab and Haryana canceled the FIR hostile to Ram Rahim for apparently damaging the spiritual affections of Saint Kabir Das, Guru Ravi Das devotees.


Case title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan v. State of Punjab and another


Judgment pronounced: 30.10.2023

Appearance :

Petitioner : Abhishek Sanghi, Jitender Khurana

Respondent : Navraj Singh


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has canceled the FIR charged in hostile to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh claimed for damaging the spiritual sentiments of Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas’ Devotees.

FIR was charged regarding the discourse of Satsang organized by Ram Rahim in the year of 2016. He claimed to be associated with Sant Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas with liquor and prostitution.

Facts of the case

The council for the petitioner stated that the necessary ingredients to constitute an offense under Section 295A of the IPC, are: intent to outrage religious feelings and a deliberate malicious intent to insult the religious beliefs of a particular community, which is absent in the case.

Later it was added that Adverting to the instant case and considering the aforementioned interpretation of the provisions of Section 295A of the IPC, this Court would be obligated to meticulously examine the entirety of the discourse which was delivered by the petitioner.

On the contrary, the council from the state stated that it would be essential that the analysis of the discourse delivered by the petitioner is undertaken in conjunction with various historical texts where the incident regarding Sant Kabir Das is detailed. It would also be crucial to examine whether the petitioner while delivering the discourse in question, distorted or twisted the historical texts to intentionally hurt the sentiments of the followers of Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas

Analysis of the court

After examining the historical references of the discourse produced the Court opined that there is no evidence of any distortion or misrepresentation within the incident relating to the life of Sant Kabir Das.


The Court also noted that the complainant while lodging the FIR had selectively extracted disconnected segments of Rahim’s speech and presented them without proper context.

The court contended that the discourse was delivered in 2016 and no complaint was received on this issue for seven years before a complaint was made in 2023.

the Court quashed the FIR stating that, “On a comparison with various books and historical texts, particularly the discourse in question, it is evident that neither is there any mens rea on the part of the petitioner nor any distortion or exaggeration of the incident about Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas, to such an extent, that it could have offended their followers.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

Click here to view the judgment


Declared offenders cannot seek to take back the FIR based on an understanding by filing petitions Through the power of attorneys leaving out the special circumstances. P&H High court


State of Punjab & Anr Versus Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors

Decided on:18.10.2023




During a ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court legitimacy of legal petitions stuffed through a power of attorney in criminal cases has been made clear.

Facts of the case

The petitioners looked around for quashing of FIR under various sections of IPC. The grounds for the aforesaid entreaty were purely based on an understanding dated 1st Feb of 2023.

Justice Jusjit Singh Bedi said a declared offender cannot look around for revocation of the FIR based on a secret understanding, more, so when he is a fugitive in multiple cases pending against him.

After scrutinization while hearing the plea filed through distinct power of attorney under section 482 of Cr, PC for quashing of FIR lodged in 2014 for committing fraud under sections 420,406,467,468,471,120-B,409,477 of IPC.

In the abovementioned case, it was also stated that the petitioners had extorted over 100 cr of rupees and fled to the USA.

The petitioners capitulated that a secret understanding has been in upshot between the parties in terms of which a sum of 5cr has been paid to the complainant and therefore  FIR and all the proceedings are in flow were required to be revoked.

Court analysis and decision

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in his judgment, shed light on the legitimacy of the petition, especially considering that the petitioners included declared offenders and fugitives.

Justice Bedi noted a serious allegation had been leveled particularly against the first petitioner for siphoning off crores of rupees and fleeing to the USA

the Court said that a petition can be filed through Power of Attorney only if the petitioner is, “a minor, insane, suffering from disability or for certain compelling circumstances is unable to appear in person.”

Consequently, the Court held there was no reason to quash the FIR based on a compromise.

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click here to view judgement


Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinize assertion against Civil Judge of deceit with Land Grabbing Accused


State of Punjab and others … Versus Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi 

Decided on: 18.10.2023




The Punjab and Haryana High Court situated at Chandigarh in recent past ordered The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate a land dispute case in which a Civil judge has been accused of secret understanding with the accused of the case. The bench of Justice Pankaj Jain was dealing with the petition seeking the transfer of FIR listing offenses punishable under sections 452,323,506,427,120-B,148 and 149 of the IPC to Central Bureau.

Facts of the case

The case relates to the ownership of land worth 100cr by its market value which has its possession with Delhi-based Guru Nanak Vidya Mandir Trust in the Punjab Mohali district.

An FIR listed at police station Zirakpur asserting that definite persons had created an Imposter trust and forged the legal documents to obtain title over the aforesaid land.

The aforesaid FIR deals with 8 acres of land in Mohali’s Zirakpur which contains that this aforesaid land was purchased in 1986 and since then the possession of the land is with the trust.

Besides forgery of legal documents they had illegally trespassed in the aforementioned land and beat up the security guards also destroyed the installed CCTV.

The Charitable Trust earlier this year approached the High Court in command seeking an inquiry by the CBI or SIT into the asserted illegal attempt to take over the land in possession of the trust.

The accused also managed to get an ad-interim injunction in a civil suit filed before a court in Dera Bassi, the trust submitted. 

However, the order was later vacated with the observation that it was obtained by portraying documents in a wrong manner.

Court analysis and decision

The Court has now disposed that the investigation is to be handled by the CBI.

The Court passed the order while opining that the abuse of the process of law alleged in this case called for a detailed investigation so that the trust of the litigants in the system does not erode.

The trial court was also restrained from proceeding further in the matter till the completion of the investigation. 

Written by Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

Click here to view judgement


Accused charged under sections 42& 50 of the NDPS Act, Punjab high court grants bail as he was a first-time offender

TITLE: Darshan Singh V State of Punjab

Decided On-: July 24, 2023


CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasijth Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION-  The petitioner is requesting the setting aside of the order terminating the petitioner’s dealership agreement by filing this petition in accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution.


The police party was on patrol when they noticed four people with short hair walking towards them while holding a large black bag in their hands, according to the case’s brief facts. They became confused when they saw the police party and attempted to go back. They were captured, though. The petitioner, Darshan Singh @ Aman, son of Sohan Singh, Lal Hussain, son of Umardin, Mam Hussain, son of Rashid Mohammad, and Gaurav Bhola, son of Jag Partap, all revealed their names. The recovery of 2.50 Kg of Charas from the accused was then accomplished after complying with the relevant provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure.


The petitioner has been wrongly accused in this case, according to the learned attorney for the petitioner. The NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions found in Sections 42 and 50 have not been followed to the fullest extent possible. The time of the search and seizure saw the absence of any independent witnesses. Since he was a first-time offender, had been detained since October 15, 2020, and only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses had been questioned, it was likely that the trial would take some time to conclude. As a result, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

On the other hand, the knowledgeable State counsel claims that the petitioner has been found to be in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. As a result, the petitioner was not eligible for the grant of bail due to the prohibition outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She does, however, acknowledge that the petitioner is a first-time offender who has been detained since October 15, 2020, and that only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses have been questioned thus far.

In these circumstances, and without taking a position on the case’s legal merits, we believe it is appropriate to release the petitioners on bail, subject to any terms and restrictions that the Trial Court may impose.It is also made clear that if the petitioners are discovered to be parties to any other cases governed by the NDPS Act or other criminal laws, it would constitute a misuse of the concession of bail that was granted to them today, and appropriate sanctions would be applied.

In the current case, it is claimed that the petitioner has been in custody since October 15, 2020, and only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses have been questioned thus far. He has never been arrested before and is a first-time offender. Given the beneficial provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, in this case, the strictures of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may be somewhat relaxed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement


It is well established by law that an employer has the sole authority to decide whether to keep a position or not.– Punjab high court

TITLE: Manoj Kumar Verma v Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology  

Decided On-:01.05.2023

CWP No. 27944 of 2013

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jaishree Thakur

INTRODUCTION- The accused/appellant was found guilty and sentenced to two and a half years of rigorous imprisonment for violating Section 17(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the “NDPS Act”). The present appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated April 27, 2005, and order of sentence dated April 29, 2005, passed by the learned Special Judge, Rohtak. The sentences were set to run simultaneously.


The petitioner was hired by Ansal Institute of Technology, respondent No. 2 in this case (now merged with Sushant School of Architecture with effect from 2012 and renamed as Ansal University, impleaded as respondent No. 3), where his services were confirmed with effect from July 1, 2007, as Senior Lecturer-Mass Communications. Up until 01.02.2011, he continued to work for the Institute and was given additional duties as the course coordinator for the Post Graduate Diploma in Retail Management (PGDRM). He received a promotion to Assistant Professor in the School of Management on January 1, 2009. The petitioner received an increase based on his performance and annual evaluation on August 17, 2009, and another increase on December 27, 2010. On 08.02.2011, the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Dean (Marketing), receiving a monthly honorarium increase to Rs. 5,000 as of that date. On October 7, 2011, the petitioner left his job because he had jaundice and was supposed to stay in bed. He sent respondent No. 2 an email to properly inform him.When he returned to work on November 8, 2011, respondent No. 2 requested that he hand over his laptop and leave his cubicle. For the months of October 2011 to March 2012, his salary was withheld and paid later. The petitioner’s employment was terminated on March 19, 2012, due to a low student enrollment in the subject taught.


The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney will argue that the decision to terminate his employment is unlawful because Ansal University’s administration advertised the assistant professor position in management he was holding less than a month after his employment was terminated. The petitioner was qualified to teach for the position that had been advertised, it is argued. It was further argued that the respondent abolished the position in order to fire the petitioner from his or her position

Contrarily, knowledgeable counsel representing the respondents would contend that the petitioner in this case was appointed to the position of Senior Lecturer-Mass Communication with the Ansal Institute of Technology, Gurgaon, and that it was because of the post’s elimination that he was asserting that his services were terminated in accordance with the Institute’s Service Rules. The creation and administration of AIT were handled by the Chiranjiv Charitable Trust (abbreviated CCT), which was authorised by the Societies Registration Act. The Management Body of the respondent was permitted by Rule 20.2 of AIT to terminate the employment of any regular member of the staff, academic or non-academic, without cause or prior notice after giving one month’s notice or by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner received a month’s notice before the services would end. The Institute had tried to accommodate him in another programme, the Post Graduate Diploma in Retail Management (PGDRM), but that programme has also been discontinued due to a low student intake, and since the subject was not being taught, his services were no longer needed. This was made clear in the notice that the programme under which the appointment had been made had been closed at the Institute. According to the aforementioned Section, the Board of Management has the authority to fire a teacher or other academic staff member for misconduct. According to Section 22(3) and (4) of the Act of 1988, the Board of Management is not permitted to fire a teacher, a member of the academic staff, or any other employee unless there is a justifiable reason for doing so and after giving the person concerned three months’ notice, with the additional condition that the person concerned be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the proposed action. “In case the petitioner seeks arrears of salary, the respondents would be at liberty to seek information on whether the petitioner had been gainfully employed during the pendency of these proceedings and take an appropriate decision. The entire exercise regarding entitlement of arrears of salary be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on the demand being made. Petition stands allowed accordingly”.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement



1 2