Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Lack of Evidence in Abetment Case: Availing Legal Remedy to Recover Money Cannot Amount to Abetment: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has handed down a verdict emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in abetment cases. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi on October 17, 2023, revolves around allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 420 (cheating).

The court's decision, which is expected to set a precedent, stems from the case of a co-accused who was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). Remarkably, even the suicide note failed to attribute any specific role to the accused. The prosecution offered multiple explanations for the accused's possession of certain cheques, but these explanations were found lacking in substance.

The judgment underscores the principle that availing oneself of legal remedies cannot be construed as abetment in the absence of specific allegations of harassment or instigation. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the deceased had already been convicted as a result of a complaint filed by the petitioner, and the appeals of the main accused had been abated. In light of these factors, the court determined that there was no useful purpose in continuing proceedings against the present petitioner.

Justice Bedi's verdict culminated in the quashing of FIR No. 35 dated May 29, 2016, under Sections 306, 34, 120-B, and 420 IPC, registered at the Government Railway Police Station in Patiala, along with the report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and all subsequent proceedings related to the petitioner.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for specific and substantial evidence in abetment cases. It reinforces the legal principle that availing oneself of legal remedies should not be misconstrued as abetment in the absence of concrete allegations of harassment or instigation. The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2023

Gurpreet Singh vs State of Punjab     

Latest Legal News