Madras High Court
Vijaya vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 10172 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5197 of 2021
Vijaya ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Palamedu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.800 of 2020) ..1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Paramasivam
Sub Inspector of Police,
Palamedu 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 First Information
Report in Crime No.800 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateshwaran
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 10172 of 2021
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.800 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
applied for passport seeking job in abroad. When the matter is pending, it
came to notice of this Court that because of the pendency of this case,
enquiry of the Passport Officer is kept pending. It is seen that on
07.07.2021, a Clarification Notice has been issued by the Passport Authority
regarding the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No. 800 of 2020.
3. The case in Crime No. 800 of 2020 has been registered for the
offences under Sections 188 and 269 IPC. The present petition is filed to
quash the First Information Report. A reading of the First Information
Report shows that the petitioner went outside without any reason 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
outing, 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. 10172 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 walking
near Balamedu bus stand.
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 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 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. 10172 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 walking near the bus stand. 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 first respondent that at the time of the incident, the
petitioner was affected by Covid-19. So the contention that walking in the
street 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 walking in the street should not be a reason for
spoiling the future of the petitioner. Unintended casual act should not take
away the future of the petitioner. 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.800 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. 10172 of 2021
8. In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.07.2021
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,
Palamedu 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. 10172 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.,
CM
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5197 of 2021
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
