Madras High Court
Rajan vs State Represented By on 9 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10926 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.5578 of 2021
Rajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Pazhavoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.101 of 2020 . .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.101 of
2020 dated 28.04.2020 on the file of the respondent police and to quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.101 of 2020 on the file
of the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
3.The case of the petitioner is that on 28.04.2020 at about 10.00
hours, the petitioner herein was roaming in the road by using his two
wheeler at the time of prohibition due to COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, a
case in Crime No.101 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections
188 and 269 of IPC has been registered on the same day, after getting
permission from the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. The present
petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.101 of
2020.
4.This petition is filed mainly on the ground that Section 188 IPC
is non-cognizable offence and the police has no right to register the case
and investigate. Section 269 IPC is concerned, there is no intention on
the part of the petitioner to spread the disease to another and simply he
was roaming in that area.
5.Heard both sides.
6.In the judgment reported in 2018(2) L.W (Crl.) 606 In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
Jeevanandhan and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another), it has
been held that the police has no right to file a case under Section 188 IPC
and to investigate the same without getting proper permission from the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Here, there is no material to show
that before registering the case, permission of the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate has been obtained. In such circumstances, the
respondent has no right to register the case and to investigate the matter.
7.A detailed guideline has been issued by this Court in the
judgment cited supra. On this aspect, Section 188 IPC will not stand
against the petitioner. The offence under Section 269 IPC is concerned,
as per the contents of the First Information Report, it is seen that the
petitioner was simply roaming in the road. It is a trivial matter in which
no offence of grievous nature is involved. Even though Section 144
Cr.P.C order was in force, during the relevant time the respondent police
ought to have warned the petitioner to go in-door, instead of that, they
filed a case. It is also not the case of the respondent that at the time of the
incident, the petitioner was affected by Covid-19. So the contention that
roaming in the road during the pandemic period will spread the disease is
without any basis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
8.Considering the nature of allegations and the offences involved
in this case, I am of the considered view that roaming in the road without
any reason should not be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioner.
Unintended casual act should not take away the future of the petitioner.
Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
Government is also going to drop all these cases, which have been
registered during the pandemic period against the public. Taking all
these aspects into account, I am of the considered view that the First
Information Report in in Crime No.101 of 2020 on the file of the
respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.
9.In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Pazhavoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
mm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
