Dismissed¶22

Parveen v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2025CWP/15795/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-15795-2024; Parveen v. State of Haryana and Ors; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; April 04, 2025; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme 2020 versus repealed Scheme of 2013; sexual abuse victim compensation; dissatisfaction with quantum of compensation by trial Court order dated 27.03.2024; no challenge to order under apt provisions; misconceived writ petition; efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against inadequate compensation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate statutory remedy for redressal of the grievance regarding inadequate compensation. ¶22

Parveen Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate statutory remedy for redressal of the grievance regarding inadequate compensation.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should issue upon respondent No.2 to grant compensation to the petitioner's son, a victim of sexual abuse, under the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, instead of the repealed Scheme of 2013, the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum granted by the trial Court's order dated 27.03.2024. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The instant writ petition is a misconceived motion, inasmuch as the petitioner, having not challenged the trial Court's order dated 27.03.2024 under the apt provisions of law, is seized of an efficacious remedy to file an appeal against that order on account of grant of inadequate compensation.

¶19

Key takeaways

Leave was granted to withdraw the instant writ petition, with liberty to take recourse to the appropriate statutory remedy for redressal of the petitioner's grievance.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; oral), CWP-15795-2024, Parveen v. State of Haryana and Ors, decided April 04, 2025 — Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the learned trial Court's order dated 27.03.2024, the petitioner sought directions upon respondent No.2 to grant compensation to his son, a sexual abuse victim, under the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020 instead of the repealed Scheme of 2013. On a specific query, petitioner's counsel conceded that the trial Court's order had not been challenged under the apt provisions of law; the Court held the writ petition to be a misconceived motion as the petitioner was seized of an efficacious remedy to file an appeal against the order on account of grant of inadequate compensation. Leave to withdraw was granted and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104 CWP-15795-2024 Date of Decision : April 04, 2025

PARVEEN

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

¶7

-RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: Mr. Satpal Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, as granted by the learned trial Court to the victims concerned, through drawing the order dated 27.03.2024, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of directions upon the respondent No.2 to grant compensation to his son, on account of him being a sexual abuse victim, under the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, instead of the repealed Scheme of 2013.

¶15

This Court posed a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the petitioner has challenged the order (supra) under the apt provisions of law, to which he answered in negative. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the instant writ petition is a misconceived motion inasmuch as the petitioner is seized of an efficacious

¶16

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.04.07 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-15795-2024

¶18

¶19

remedy to file appeal against the order (supra), on account of grant of inadequate compensation.

¶20

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the instant writ petition, however, with liberty to take recourse to the appropriate statutory remedy for redressal of petitioner’s grievance.

¶21

Leave granted.

¶22

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed as

¶23

withdrawn , however, with liberty (supra).

¶24

April 04, 2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶25

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.04.07 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Parveen v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Baba Vs State of Punjab and Others

Tuli Diagnostic Centre Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Satbir Singh Vs the Tehsildar Garhshanker and Others

Sangeeta Kumari and Others Vs the Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others

Surinder Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Another