In a writ petition by 146 petitioners who were held liable for congregating in a church during covid, Justice Sashikanta Mishra noted that there was a lack of evidence of any criminal intention on the part of the petitioners and continuance of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Thus, the proceedings against them were quashed.
Brief Facts:
146 petitioners have filed the current application under Section 482 of CrPC and they are praying to quash the order dated 2nd December 2020 passed by the lower court, whereby cognizance was taken of the offenses under Section 260/270/34 of IPC and process was issued to the Petitioners-accused persons.
In July 2020, one pastor of a Baptist Church, in Puttasingh expired and a monthly prayer was arranged in the church by the villagers of Puttasingh in August 2020 to offer prayer to the departed soul. The police questioned them as to why they had congregated in such large numbers violating the guidelines of the Government issued to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, which was then prevailing. It is also claimed that they were not wearing masks and were also not maintaining social distancing norms. A case was filed, a chargesheet was submitted and the court below took cognizance of the offenses.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no material, prima facie, to show that the guidelines of the Government had been violated and even otherwise there is no evidence to show that covid spread because of the congregation. Thus, the initiation of the criminal proceedings here amounts to an abuse of court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, clearly show that the petitioner had congregated inside the Church in large numbers when Covid was at its peak and the congregation was against the government guidelines.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that there was undoubtedly a congregation of more than 100 people inside the church and at the relevant time, there were also government guidelines in place. But there has been no mention of how big the church was and how much the distance between the petitioners was. Further, the court also noted that there was no evidence that the congregation led to the spread of Covid. It was also pointed out by the court that the entanglement of a person in a criminal case is a serious matter and unless a definite criminal intention is forthcoming from the records, it would not be proper to implicate a person in a criminal case. A reference was made to the case of A. Muniadhas v. The State, wherein a criminal case was initiated against the members of a political party for protesting against the non-construction of a Government Hospital at the allotted site during a time when the pandemic was at its peak, in this case, the court noted that even though the informant cannot be blamed for registering an FIR, but the question is whether the prosecution can be allowed to continue.
Accordingly, for the current case, the court concluded that there is a lack of evidence of any criminal intention on the part of the petitioners and the congregation was actually for a pious reason, to pray for the departed soul and no criminality can be attributed in such a case.
The Decision of the Court:
The court held that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and thus the petition was allowed and the case registered against the petitioners was quashed.
Case Title: Midyan Pani and others v. State of Orissa
Coram: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
Case No.: CRLMC No. 701 OF 2023
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M.R. Mishra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
