"She hit me with her car, can this be considered a civil dispute?" Must be detained! "In Shanghai, Ms. Ying had a dispute with Ms. Chen due to the parking space problem, and Ms. Chen was angry and drove into Ms. Ying. Public security organs do not file a case on the grounds of civil disputes. Unsatisfied, Ms. Ying went to the court and requested that Ms. Chen be detained.
(Case source: Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court)
Ms. Ying and Ms. Chen live in the same neighborhood. On the day of the incident, the two had a dispute over the parking space in the community, which led to a verbal conflict.
Although there were a few quarrels, it was not a deep hatred, Ms. Ying did not pay attention to it, and after the negotiation, she turned around and slowly walked in the middle of the road in the community.
But what she never expected was that Ms. Chen was not a good stubble, and she had always held a grudge against the quarrel, driving the vehicle behind Ms. Ying.
Soon after, Ms. Chen suddenly hit Ms. Ying with her car, causing Ms. Ying to be injured. After Ms. Ying got up, she blocked ms. Chen's car to prevent her from leaving and called the police.
After the police arrived at the scene, they issued Ms. Ying with a notice of injury examination and a "Receipt receipt for case (incident)", and made a record of the interrogation.
The next day, Ms. Ying went to the public security organ to report the case and asked to file a case for Ms. Chen.
After more than a month, the police notified Ms. Ying by telephone, preparing to organize Ms. Ying and Ms. Chen to mediate, and Ms. Ying expressed her reluctance to mediate and requested that Ms. Chen be dealt with according to law.
After Ms. Ying refused to mediate, she waited for follow-up processing, but the left and right police did not reply to Ms. Ying, nor did they say deal with it, nor did they say deal with it.
Ms. Ying, who could not wait for a reply, was also angry, so she took the public security organ to the court.
Ms. Ying's reason is that she has already reported the case, and whether it is handled or not, the public security organs should give themselves a reply, but the police have been silent, which is a typical administrative inaction. Require the court to order the public security organs to perform their statutory duties and handle their reports.
After the public security organs arrived at the court, they also responded to the matter, and the public security organs believed that after receiving the "110" order, the police immediately rushed to the scene of the incident to deal with it, issued a notice of injury examination to Ms. Ying, a "Case (Incident) Case Receipt Receipt", and made a record of the interrogation.
After investigation, the police situation on the same day was a civil dispute, and it was ready to organize mediation, but Ms. Ying refused to mediate, and at that time, Ms. Ying had been informed that ms. Ying had been resolved through judicial channels.
Therefore, having fulfilled the statutory duties of the "110" police, the corresponding lady requested to file a case and investigate the claim, because the dispute between the two is a civil dispute and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the public security organs, so the request law rejects Ms. Ying's litigation request.
So, legally speaking, do you think the public security organ should reply to the results of Ms. Ying's handling?
Article 78 of the Law on Punishment for Administration of Public Security stipulates that, after accepting a report, accusation, report, or surrender, the public security organ shall immediately conduct an investigation if it finds that it is an act that violates the administration of public security;
It can be seen from the above provisions that Ms. Ying has already reported the case in this case, and even if the public security organ believes that the dispute between Ms. Ying and Ms. Chen is a civil dispute and does not reach the level of a public security case, it should reply to Ms. Ying and explain the reasons.
After trial, the court held that Ms. Ying reported the case to the public security organs, and the public security organs did not make a registration form for Ms. Ying to accept the case, nor did it make further handling.
After Ms. Ying's written application, even if the public security organ believes that the matter requested by Ms. Ying does not fall within her jurisdiction, it should inform Ms. Ying in writing and explain the reasons.
However, the public security organs have not taken action and informed Ms. Ying in writing and explained the reasons. The conduct of the public security organs is illegal.
Finally, the court ordered the public security organs to perform their statutory duties within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment and to deal with Ms. Ying's report.
Seeing this, everyone thinks that Ms. Chen's act of driving into Ms. Ying is a civil dispute, or a public security case?
In this case, Ms. Chen drove a vehicle to hit Ms. Ying, causing Ms. Ying's bodily injury, which is a typical violation of article 43 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law by intentionally injuring the body of others, which falls within the scope of public security cases under the jurisdiction of the public security organs.
Article 43 of the Law on Punishment for Administration of Public Security stipulates that whoever intentionally injures the body of another person shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days, and shall also be fined not less than 200 yuan but not more than 500 yuan.
The intentional injury constituting this article is not conditional on the degree of the injury of the victim, in short, as long as the victim is injured, it can constitute the intentional injury provided for in this article, and the size of the injury can only indicate the seriousness of the circumstances, but does not affect the determination of the perpetrator who constitutes an intentional injury to the public security offence.
However, the public security organ argued at trial that the case was a "civil dispute", so it was found that it did not fall within the scope of jurisdiction, obviously confusing the "civil dispute" with the "case of public security violation caused by the civil dispute", and the relationship between the two is the cause and the effect, but it cannot be replaced by each other.
Moreover, administrative liability and civil liability are two different legal liabilities, and if the acts of the parties constitute torts and at the same time constitute public security violations, they shall bear both civil liability and administrative liability.
Specific to this case, after a dispute between Ms. Chen and Ms. Ying, she then drove a car into Ms. Ying, causing Ms. Ying to be injured, which not only violated Ms. Chen's right to physical health, but also violated the relevant fixation of the "Public Security Administration Punishment" law, constituting an illegal act of intentionally injuring others.
In summary, I personally believe that this case is not a simple civil dispute, but also a case of public security violations, and Ms. Chen should be punished according to law.
What do you think about that?
Welcome to leave a comment
Follow @Haozi's statement
Share legal classics every day
Read the case, taste life, and see the variety of society! #Law Popularization Action##Shanghai Side Affairs ##上海头条 #
