Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati 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