Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"Court Quashes FIR Against Sukhbir Singh Badal, Observes 'No Evidence to Support Charges'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR against Sukhbir Singh Badal, a well-known political leader and President of Shiromani Akali Dal. The Court observed that there was "no evidence to support charges" under various sections of the IPC and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Background

Sukhbir Singh Badal was accused of obstructing legal mining operations and threatening the staff of M/s Friends and Company. The FIR was registered under multiple sections, including 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 IPC 1860, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Badal argued that the FIR was politically motivated and that he had visited the site to investigate complaints of illegal mining.

The Court noted that the petitioner, a well-known political personality, had visited the mining site to verify complaints about illegal mining. "The Court found no evidence to support the charges under Sections 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 IPC, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897," the judgement read.

The Court highlighted the lack of evidence gathered by the prosecution. "Prosecution fails to gather any evidence of disobedience or wrongful restraint by the petitioner," the Court observed.

The Court also noted that Badal's visit to the site could not be considered a violation of any promulgation issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, or the Disaster Management Act, 2006.

Given the lack of evidence and the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. "Given above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is a fit case where the continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law," the judgement concluded.

 

D.D- August 24, 2023

Sukhbir Singh Badal vs State of Punjab and another                    

Similar News