Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims

P&H HC Dismisses Petition Challenging Framing of Charges under Sections 304 and 427 IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 21April 2023, The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the framing of charges against the petitioner under Sections 304 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving the death of three persons due to extreme negligence and rash driving of an oil tanker.

The petitioner argued that since there was no allegation of him being under the influence of liquor, the case should bAe treated as rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC. However, the Court observed that the material on record indicated that the allegations against the petitioner showed extreme negligence and rashness while driving the oil tanker, leading to the death of three persons.

Justice Vivek Puri, who presided over the case, held that a charge under Section 304 IPC could be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion, if supported with material on record. The Court further noted that while the charge framed by the trial Court may not be properly worded, the error could be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allows for the amendment of the charge at any stage of the trial.

The petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was advised to look into the alteration/amendment of the charge as per the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., considering the observations made by the High Court.

Date of Decision: 21.04.2023

Chhinda Singh  VS State of Punjab                    

 

Latest Legal News