Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Car Workshop for Lack of Offences

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Harkesh Manuja, quashed an FIR registered against Parwinder Singh Main and another individual, who were accused of operating a car workshop in a residential area. The court held that the allegations made in the FIR did not establish any offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 283 (danger or obstruction in public way of line of navigation) and 427 (mischief causing damage).

The case originated from an FIR (No. 169/2020) registered on 8th September 2020 at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, based on a complaint received from residents of Mohalla Pink Avenue. The complaint alleged that a car workshop operated by the petitioners was causing inconvenience to the local residents. Despite the Municipal Council Ludhiana issuing a notice to the workshop, it continued its operations, prompting the filing of the FIR.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR was filed as a result of ongoing disputes with the landlord and that the alleged offences were not substantiated by the contents of the FIR. On the other hand, the state counsel argued that the workshop's sealed gate had been opened, causing obstruction and injury to the public.

After careful examination of the facts and arguments presented, the High Court found merit in the petitioners' submissions. Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that the FIR lacked specific averments of danger, obstruction, or injury caused to any person, and there was no evidence of public way or public line of navigation being obstructed. The court further noted that the FIR did not provide any details of the mischief committed or the loss or damage caused.

In light of these considerations, the High Court invoked its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the court to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the court's process. Citing the landmark case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1991 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 383), the court held that the present case satisfied the criteria for quashing the FIR as the allegations did not constitute any offence and were inherently improbable.

High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 169/2020, along with all proceedings arising from it. The court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications related to the case.

Date: 18th April 2023

Parwinder Singh Main & another vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News