S. K. Shorey and Associates Chamber

06/02/2026

I feel deeply humbled and grateful to my alma mater for this kind recognition. Being honoured by the institution that shaped my early journey is truly special. Thank you for seeing me, remembering me, and celebrating my journey — as a person, shaped by the institution, my mentors and my friends. This honour means more than words can express.

09/10/2024

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that even if the fatal injury was caused by one person of the unlawful assembly to the deceased, all will be liable for murder under the principle of "vicarious criminal liability".

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma said, "Even if the lethal assault was caused by one of the accused, whereas, the other co-accused caused grievous injuries on the person of the injured. Nonetheless, each of the accused who formed an unlawful assembly, rather merely on the above score, qua the fatal injury becoming not caused by each of them, but becoming caused only by one of them, inasmuch as, the lethal injury becoming caused by convict Jasbir Singh, thus were not required to be saved from the attraction qua them vis-a-vis the principle of vicarious criminal liability, as enshrined in Section 149 of the IPC."

The bench explained that all the accused, thus not only formed an unlawful assembly but also thereby they are deemed to be holding a "common object".

It added that all the co-accused concerned, who were evidently members of an unlawful assembly, besides shared a common object, "thus with the principal accused, thereupon all the accused were also required to be convicted for a charge drawn for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, irrespective of the factum, that the fatal injury becoming not being caused by each of them, but becoming caused by only one of them, inasmuch as, the same becoming caused by Jasbir Singh (main accused)."

These observations were made while hearing an appeal filed by the accused Jasbir Singh and the State Of Punjab. Jasbir was convicted by the Trial Court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I of the IPC against the charges framed under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323/149 of the IPC.

Facts in Brief

The case dates back to 1998, the accused Jasbir Singh gave some blows to the deceased and the main accused gave a fatal blow to the deceased.

The Court trial made an objective analysis of the incriminatory material and framed charges against the accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323/149 of the IPC.

After hearing the submissions and examining the submissions on record, the Court noted that the chain of circumstantial evidence were linked with each other.

The bench considered that the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused and the witnesses identified the accused without any prior test identification parade.

It further noted that the disclosure statements were made by the accused thereafter the weapons were recovered and it could not be proved that the evidence was planted.

"Significantly, since the appellants have not been able to either ably deny their signatures as occur on the exhibits (supra) nor when they have been able to prove the apposite denial. Moreover, since they have also not been able to bring forth tangible evidence but suggestive that the recoveries are either contrived or invented. Therefore, all the exhibits are prima facie concluded to be holding the utmost evidentiary tenacity," the bench said.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the "accused were not bystanders to the crime event thereupons, when they did evidently made incriminatory participations in the crime event, therebys thus reiteratedly all of them became vicariously liable for the offence of murder, as became committed by the principal accused and/or by the principal in the first degree, inasmuch as, by convict Jasbir Singh."

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and modified the conviction under Section 304-I IPC to Section 302 IPC.

Title: State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh and others

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate assisted by

Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocates for the appellant (in CRA-S-852-SB-2001) for respondent No.1 in CRA-D-556-DBA-2008.

Mr. T.P.S. Tung and Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2, 7 and 8 in CRA-D-556-DBA-2008

Mr. P.P. Chahar, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondent No.6 CRA-D-556-DBA-2008.

Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR-169-2002)

23/02/2024

02/02/2024

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate, while issuing the summoning order, shall not act in a casual manner; rather they should be satisfied that there exists a sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.

The recording of the satisfaction of the Magistrate while issuing the summons should not be in a cryptic manner but only when a prima facie case is made out from the allegations.

Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, noted that detailed reasoning is not required from the Magistrate while issuing summons, but the Magistrate also needs to record satisfaction that there exists a sufficient ground for proceedings.

“While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons, a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”

The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came in a criminal case, where a commercial dispute was alleged to be given a criminal colour by the complainant.

The petition of complaint reflects that the dispute between the parties centred around the rate at which the assigned work was to be done.

The complainant alleged that the accused-appellant had not paid the sum of the purchase order.

The Magistrate, after recording the statements of the complainant and his father, issued summons to the appellant-accused to face the trial under Sections 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Aggrieved by the Summon, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court for quashing of the criminal complaint. However, the High Court dismissed the application by noting that the subject matter of the complaint involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact, hence it requires adjudication.

It is against the impugned order of the High Court, that the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, after perusing the allegations made against the accused in the complaint, the Supreme Court noted that there exists no prima facie case against the accused for which the Magistrate has issued the summons to the accused to appear for the trial.

According to the court, the Magistrate has failed to apply his mind in issuing summons by not recording the satisfaction that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial.

“The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial.”, the court observed while placing reliance on its Judgment in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749.

According to the Court, “a commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint.”

The court noted that the accused cannot be tried for the offence under Sections 405 and 406 of IPC. The court placed reliance on its judgment in the case of Deepak Gaba and Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3, where it held as follows:

“A mere wrong demand or claim would not meet the conditions specified by Section 405IPC in the absence of evidence to establish entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal, which action should be in violation of any direction of law, or legal contract touching the discharge of trust.”

“We do not find any material to come to a prima facie finding that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion of any material for the personal use of the appellant in relation to gas supplying work done by the respondent no.2. The said work was done in course of regular commercial transactions. It cannot be said that there was misappropriation or conversion of the subject property. The dispute pertains to the revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction. What has emerged from the petition of complaint and the initial deposition made in support thereof that the accused-appellant wanted a rate variation and the entire dispute arose out of such stand of the appellant. On the basis of these materials, it cannot be said that there was evidence for commission of offence under Section 405/406.”, the court observed while placing reliance on Deepak Gaba.

So far as the allegation of criminal intimidation against the accused is made in the complaint statements made by the appellant, the court noted that no particulars thereof have been given by the complainant.

“Both in the complaint petition and the initial deposition of one of the witnesses, there is only reproduction of part of the statutory provision giving rise to the offence of criminal intimidation. This would constitute a mere bald allegation, short of any particulars as regards to the manner in which threat was conveyed.”

The court also criticized the High Court for not applying the test proposed in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. vs Jagnar Singh and Anr (2009) 14 SCC 696, where the court held as follows:

“The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code.”

In light of the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the Criminal Complaint Case as also the summoning order issued against the accused appellant.

Case Details: SACHIN GARG VERSUS STATE OF U.P & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 75

29/01/2024

On 24.01.2024, the Hon. PHHC has held that
i). *The word ‘with’ connotes inclusion and not exclusion whereas the word ‘in’ connotes specific enclosure* .
ii). *The intention of the legislatures were quite clear while drafting of the rules. The word ‘in’ had been sued in the former portion of the Rules. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the Degree should specifically be ‘in’ Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-chemistry, the said word would have been used instead of ‘with’ as has been done in case of the subject of Agriculture.*
iii). The plain and ordinary reading of the aforesaid rule makes it quite clear that the applicant must possess a Degree with Zoology, Chemistry or Biochemistry as one of the subjects.
iv). No man should suffer because of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim “actus curiae *neminem gravabit” — an act of court shall prejudice no man.*
v). Justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done.
It was a case where the candidature of petitioner for the post of Junior Technical Assistant (JTA) was allegedly rejected by CWC considering him not-fulfilling educational qualification by forming the view that the “Agriculture or a degree with Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry as one of the subject” means one should have studied the subject Zoology or Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry during all semesters/ years in the Degree or one is required to have Degree in Zoology, Chemistry or Biochemistry, and, in a case where the petitioner had Degree of Bachelor in Engineering with Chemistry subject in the first semester of his Degree,
The Counsel for petitioner had, inter-alia, argued that the petitioner has secured Bachelors Degree in Engineering with Chemistry, thus, he complied with prescribed qualification and relied upon the Delhi High Court Judgement in Neeraj Pal and ors vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13016, whereas, respondents had relied upon the Uttrakhand High Court in Tarun Pal vs. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Division, 2018 SCC Online Utt 138 and contended that the petitioner was having Chemistry Subject in one semester, thus, he cannot be considered for the post of Junior Technical Engineer. Mere study of subjects in few semesters as ancillary subjects would not render a candidate eligible for the post of JTA as the requirement of job would not be fulfilled.
The PHHC ultimately recorded “10. This Court finds it appropriate to subscribe opinion of Delhi High Court than of Uttrakhand High Court.”
[2024:PHHC:009237] (CWP-8677-2017 decided on 24.01.2024]
{Shivam Sharma vs. Union of India and ors}

26/01/2024

Freedom lies in being bold...Adv.S.K.Shorey

24/01/2024

*On 03.01.2024 the Hon. SC has held that where the appellants (Assistant Teachers) were not at fault in their selection and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries* . This was a case of Assistant Teachers appointed in the year 1999 initially in a recognized unaided School which lateron became aided one but their salary was stopped in the year 2005 but the arrears of salary from 1999 to 2002 remained unpaid and from 2005 salary was stopped alleging manipulation and forgery in the number of sanctioned posts s from 2 to 3 by the persons involved in the selection, the Hon. SC, inter-alia, noticed that “Apart from this bare allegation, absolutely no material was placed on record to show how the appellants had colluded or were blameworthy for any manipulation” and no proof of commission of any malpractice by the appellants was available and there was absolutely nothing found against the appellants and the State lodged F.I.R. was not against the appellants, the State was not justified in abruptly and without anything more, stopping the salary. The Court observed appellants had no blameworthy conduct. They were bona fide applicants from the open market. The alleged mischief, even according to the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager.
The Court directed the State to pay salaries from 1999 to 2002 and 50% of the backwages from October, 2005 and all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and other service benefits due.
In the matter of alleged manipulations, the Court further granted liberty to the State to proceed against the Committee of Management after issuing show cause notice and make the recoveries. In the event of the Committee of Management being exonerated, no further question will arise.
[ Civil Appeal Nos.20-21 OF 2024 (@ SLP(C) Nos.3877- 3878 OF 2022]
(Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS)

27/11/2023

*May the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji guide you towards a life of compassion, love, and selfless service. Happy Guruparb!*