Murugan vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 21393 Mad

                                                                           Crl.O.P.(MD)No16265 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 26.10.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16265 of 2021

                     Murugan                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       Kottampatti Police Station,
                       Madurai District.
                       (Crime No.92 of 2020)

                     2.Natesan                                                ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
                     Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.92 of
                     2020 dated 30.03.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and
                     quash the same as against the petitioner.


                                     For Petitioner          : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
                                     For Respondent No.1     : Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                      ORDER

This petition is filed seeking quashment of Crime No.92 of

2020 on the file of first respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for first respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No16265 of 2021

3.The case of the petitioner is that on 30.03.2020, when the

2nd respondent is on his duty, the petitioner herein was roaming in

the road without wearing mask, at the time of prohibition due to

COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, a case in Crime No.92 of 2020 for the

offences punishable under Sections 188, 269 IPC and Section 3 of

the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 has been registered. The present

petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime

No.92 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 the road.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No16265 of 2021

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. 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.

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 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

first 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

first respondent police 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No16265 of 2021

future of the petitioner. Moreover, 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.358 of 2020 on the file of the respondent is

liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                                26.10.2021

                     Index    : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     gns

                     Note : Issue order copy on 27.10.2021

2.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, Kottampatti 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)No16265 of 2021

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

gns

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16265 of 2021

26.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/