Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR - Lack of Cheating Allegations and Valid Licenses

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR filed against Bhupinder Singh and others, stating that the allegations of cheating were not present and the accused firms held valid licenses. The decision was made by Justice Gurbir Singh on July 4, 2023.

The FIR, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, accused the firms of violating various provisions related to insecticides and fertilizers. However, the court found that there were no allegations of cheating made against the accused.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the accused firms possessed valid licenses for selling and stocking insecticides. Furthermore, the samples taken from the premises were found to be in compliance with the specified standards. The defense also contended that the allegations fell under a special legislation and required prior sanction, which was not obtained.

Justice Gurbir Singh, in the judgment, stated, "There is no allegation made by any farmer and there is no complaint from any corner that any cheating was committed, so provisions of Sections 420, 120-B IPC are not attracted at all." The court also relied on previous judgments, including Pardeep Kumar Garg and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Padam Bansal vs. State of Haryana, Piyara Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, and Yadwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners. However, it clarified that the order would not prevent any further proceedings if initiated through the due process of law.

This judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court highlights the importance of establishing valid allegations and compliance with the relevant laws in criminal proceedings, ensuring a fair and just legal process for all parties involved.

Date of Decision: 04.07.2023

Bhupinder Singh & Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anr. 

Latest Legal News