(301) GEETHA Vs. STATE POLICE CHIEF OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 20-07-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 161 — Hit-and-run cases — Investigation and Compensation Scheme — In hit-and-run accident cases where offenders remain untraced despite CCTV availability, High Court directed constitution of District-level Special Squads under the State Police Chief for coordinated, technology-driven investigation, and urged Central Government to strengthen the 'Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022' along lines of statutory compensation models in India Law Library Docid # 2448671
(302) XXXXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 20-07-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6 r/w S. 5(l)(m)(n) — Sole testimony of child victim, sterling witness — Delay in disclosure of prolonged sexual assault explained by the child's fear of his mother does not render his testimony unreliable — Where the victim's evidence is convincing and corroborated by family members, he qualifies as a sterling witness, and absence of India Law Library Docid # 2448672
(303) MOHD. QASIM Vs. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Preventive detention is intended to prevent a person from committing future acts, not to punish them for past actions — Therefore, detention orders based on stale or remote incidents, such as an FIR from 2023 for an order passed in 2025, are invalid — The grounds for detention must have a live and proximate link to the need for detention, and a mere reference to past criminal activities is insufficient without a India Law Library Docid # 2448735
(304) BASHARAT RAZAQ AND OTHERS Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of Proceedings — High Court's Inherent Power — The High Court can quash criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints in its inherent jurisdiction, even for non-compoundable offences, when parties have amicably settled their disputes, especially in matrimonial matters — India Law Library Docid # 2448736
(305) MANDEEP KOUR Vs. UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR THROUGH POLICE STATION UDHAMPUR[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 — Sections 8, 21, 22, 37 — Bail Application — Accused travelling in a vehicle from which contraband was recovered — No recovery from personal possession — Accused is a young woman, married shortly before the incident, and has no prior criminal record — Trial is India Law Library Docid # 2448737
(306) RAMANDEEP SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (JAMMU BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18, and 37 — Bail application — Commercial quantity — While Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, these restrictions cannot lead to indefinite incarceration of an accused awaiting trial — The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right and must be balanced India Law Library Docid # 2448738
(307) MOHAMMAD SHAFI RESHI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K[JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT (SRINAGAR BENCH)] 20-07-2026 Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 (J&K) — Section 29(4) — Retirement Age — Urban Cooperative Bank — Petitioner's service conditions governed by statutory rules (SRO 233 of 1988) fixing retirement at 58 years — Board of Management's extension beyond this age was beyond its competence and void — Petitioner had no India Law Library Docid # 2448739
(308) VANDANA AGGARWAL Vs. PRATIK GOYAL AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — S. 3, Expln. II — Domestic Incident Report — Nature and status of — Held, DIR is a document prepared to assist the Magistrate and cannot substitute or supersede the original complaint under S. 12 — Complaint and DIR must be read cumulatively, not in isolation — DIR has no independent legal existence apart from the complaint India Law Library Docid # 2447729
(309) ANURAG Vs. STATE[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 — Rape on false promise of marriage and unnatural sex — Discharge application — Framing of charges sustained — Long-term physical relationship established on alleged false promise of marriage Prosecutrix submitted identity proof during hotel check-ins, and physical relations occurred once more even after she discovered petitioner's marriage to a third party — Petitioner sought discharge claiming a consensual India Law Library Docid # 2447730
(310) PANKAJ PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 — Scope of review jurisdiction — Held, very limited — Maintainable only on discovery of new and important matter/evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence, or mistake/error apparent on the face of the record — Error must be self-evident, not one requiring a long-drawn India Law Library Docid # 2447731
(311) ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. PREM NATH[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) —Section 96 & Order 41 Rule 27 — First Appeal and Additional Evidence — Application for additional documents allowed but appeal dismissed on merits — Appellants filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record additional documents India Law Library Docid # 2447732
(312) RAVINDER SONI AND OTHERS Vs. SANATAN DHARAM SABHA HARI MANDIR (REGD.)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Interference with concurrent findings of fact — When permissible — The High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal, can only consider and adjudicate upon substantial questions of law arising from the impugned judgment — Where the courts below correctly appreciated facts to observe that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs regarding unauthorized construction India Law Library Docid # 2447733
(313) NIWAS SURENDER KUMAR AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Railways Act, 1989 — Section 93 — Scope and nature of statutory liability — Onus of proof — Section 93 fastens a statutory strict liability upon the Railway Administration as an insurer, rather than a mere bailee, to compensate for the loss, destruction, damage, or non-delivery of goods carried — The statutory exceptions carved out under the section do not confer blanket immunity — To escape liability, the burden rests squarely upon the Railways to demonstrably discharge India Law Library Docid # 2447734
(314) GORDHAN Vs. RAMCHANDRA S/O GANPAT (DECD.) THR. LRS ARJUN AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Section 11 — Res Judicata — Suit for declaration, injunction, partition, and mesne profits — Trial court dismissed suit on the ground of res judicata before recording evidence — Held, the issue of res judicata cannot be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 application as it requires India Law Library Docid # 2447767
(315) SONAM JOSHI Vs. VINOD KUMAR SAHNEY AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties in suit for specific performance — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by plaintiff against vendor — Third parties claiming independent title through succession from deceased grandmother, alleging Will set up by vendor forged, sought impleadment India Law Library Docid # 2447810
(316) BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) — Probation of Offenders Act, 1958/Section 360 Cr.P.C. — Applicability barred — Section 20AA of the PFA Act excludes the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 Cr.P.C. to a person convicted under the PFA Act unless he was below 18 years of age at the time of the offence — Where the petitioner was 44 years India Law Library Docid # 2447812
(317) JANPAL SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim petition — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probabilities — Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and negligence is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt — However, this relaxed standard does not dispense with the claimant's obligation to lay a credible factual India Law Library Docid # 2447813
(318) DAKSHINAMOORTHI AND OTHERS Vs. NARAYANASAMY NAICKER(DIED) AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Family Law — Partition — Oral Partition — Burden of Proof — The party claiming an oral partition bears the burden of proving it with cogent and contemporaneous documentary evidence, not merely on the preponderance of probabilities — Mere separate enjoyment for convenience does not equate to a legal India Law Library Docid # 2447854
(319) RUDRAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. GOURAMMA AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Hindu Law — Partition — Prior oral/family partition — Proof — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence — Concurrent finding that suit Item 'B' property stood partitioned between propositus and husband of Defendant 3 in 1982, evidenced by mutation entry, subsequent independent sale by allottee, and conduct of parties amounting to implied admission — Plaintiffs' suggestion during cross-examination itself inferred India Law Library Docid # 2448009
(320) SOMESHA B. R AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 17-07-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 528] — Karnataka Police Act — Ss. 79, 80 — Quashing of proceedings — Doctrine of parity — Proceedings against co-accused persons similarly situated already quashed by coordinate Benches on ground of non-obtaining of mandatory permission under S. 155(2) CrPC prior to registration of FIR for non-cognizable offence — Held, petitioners being similarly placed accused entitled to identical relief on doctrine of parit India Law Library Docid # 2448010