Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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