Madras High Court
S.Rajendran vs State Rep. By on 22 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9724 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9724 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4966 of 2021
S.Rajendran ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar Police Station,
Madurai District
(Crime No.762 2020) ..1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Rajkumar
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar Police Station,
Madurai District. ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the impurned First
Information Report registered in Crime No.762 of 2020 on the file of the
first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sarangan
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9724 of 2021
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No. 762 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
sold the fruits in the fruits market in Mattuthavani Market at the pandemic
period even after the respondent warned them by issuing a notice stating
that during the pandemic period they should not sell the fruits in the market.
Since the petitioner has sold the fruits during pandemic period, the present
case has been registered in Crime No. 762 of 2020 for the offences under
Sections 188 and 269 IPC. The present petition is filed to quash the First
Information Report.
3.A reading of the First Information Report shows that on
surveillance, the police found that the petitioner opened his fruit stall in the
pandemic situation, which was prevailing there and ban under Section 144
Cr.P.C was also invoked. It appears that without knowing the implication of
opening the shop, such wrong exercise is appeared to have been made by
the petitioner without any intention to spread any disease.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9724 of 2021
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 opening
his fruit shop during the pandemic period.
5. Heard both sides.
6. In the judgment reported in 2018(2) L.W (Crl.)606 (In
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 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 first respondent
has no right to register the case and to investigate the matter. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9724 of 2021
7. 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 opening his fruit shop during the pandemic period. 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 close the shop and
go in-door, instead of that, they filed a case. It is also not the case of the first
respondent that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was affected by
Covid-19. So the contention that opening the fruit shop during the pandemic
period though may be wrong, considering the nature of allegations and the
offences involved in this case, I am of the considered view that opening the
fruit shop should not be a reason for roping the petitioner into a criminal
case. Unintended casual act should not take away the peaceful life of the
petitioner.
8. More over, 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 Crime No.762 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent is liable
to be quashed and the same is quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9724 of 2021
9. In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
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.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Anna Nagar Police Station,
Madurai 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. 9724 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.,
CM
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9724 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4966 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
