Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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