Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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