Manjit Kaur Pandher through Spa Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manjit Kaur Pandher through Spa Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed: petitioner's statement to be recorded through video conferencing; delay of 124 days in filing the revision petition condoned; order subject to automatic recall and deemed dismissal of the petition if the petitioner again fails to appear despite communication of the hearing date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 124 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 124 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

It is a fit case where the petitioner's statement should be recorded through video conferencing; if any party is against such recording, that party must give reasons why her statement should be recorded in person.

Key takeaways

The concerned Court shall communicate the date of next hearing for recording of the witness-petitioner's statement through video conferencing to the counsel appearing before the trial Court on her behalf.ratio¶24
If, despite such communication, the petitioner again fails to appear, the present order shall stand recalled automatically and the petition shall be deemed dismissed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J., oral order dated 16.04.2026) in CRR-963-2026 (O&M): Criminal revision by the petitioner/complainant in FIR No. 04 dated 22.01.2020, Police Station Maloud, District Khanna (S. 380 IPC; S. 201 IPC added later), against the trial Court's order dated 02.09.2025 rejecting her request that her statement be recorded through WhatsApp video call/video conferencing, she being in the United States with a pending Green Card application and unable to travel. Delay of 124 days in filing the revision condoned (CRM-15899-2026). Petition allowed: her statement is to be recorded through video conferencing; any party resisting must give reasons why in-person recording is necessary; the trial Court is to communicate the next hearing date to her counsel; if she again fails to appear despite such communication, the order stands recalled automatically and the petition is deemed dismissed.

�� 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

107 CRR-963-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.04.2026

MANJIT KAUR PANDHER THROUGH SPA ......... Pe��oner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the pe��oner/complainant.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta2on	Sec2ons
04	22.01.2020	Maloud, District	380 IPC (Sec�on 201 IPC
		Khanna	added later on)

CRM-15899-2026

This is an applica�on for condona�on of delay of 124 days in filing the revision

pe��on.

For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on, the same is allowed and delay of 124 days in filing the revision pe��on is condoned.

CRR-963-2026 (O&M)

The present pe��on has been filed against the order dated 02.09.2025 vide which learned trial Court has dismissed the applica�on of the pe��oner for recording her statement through whatsapp video call or through electronic channel such as video conferencing in above cap�oned FIR.

Counsel for the pe��oner submits that the pe��oner has already applied for a Green Card, which is presently pending, and under the current circumstances, it is not possible for her to travel back from the United States and the situa�on is beyond her control. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper if her statement be recorded through video conferencing. He further submits that her counsel would iden�fy her and also put

JYOTI 2026.04.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

�� 

signatures on behalf of the pe��oner on the tes�mony and she would not claim any prejudice in this regard. He further submits that even a7er, if the trial Court considers the personal presence of the pe��oner to be necessary, the ma8er may be adjourned for a reasonable period to enable her to return to India for the purpose of recording her statement.

Given the nature of order this Court, proposes to pass there is no need to issue no�ce or ask for response of private respondents.

In the en�rety of facts and circumstances, it is a fit case where statement of the pe��oner should be recorded through video conferencing and if any party is against the recording of such statement, they should give reasons that why her statement is to be recorded in person wherein more explicitly when the pe��oner through her counsel has made a statement that she will not claim any prejudice for appearing through video conferencing.

Given above, the present pe��on is allowed. The concerned Court shall communicate the date of next hearing for recording of statement of witness-pe��oner through video conferencing to the counsel appearing before the trial Court on her behalf. In the event that the pe��oner fails to appear on the said date, one further opportunity shall be granted. However, if despite such communica�on the pe��oner again fails to appear, the present order shall stand recalled automa�cally and the pe��on shall be deemed dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

16.04.2026

Jyo�-II

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

JYOTI 2026.04.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.