Madras High Court
T.Augastin vs The State Represented By on 3 September, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6580 of 2021
T.Augastin ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
In Crime No.375 of 2020
2.Robert Udaya Singh . .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.375 of
2020 dated 13.04.2020 alleged offences under Section 188 and 269 of
IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1987 r/w 51 of Disaster
Management Act, on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maran
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashment of Crime No.375 of 2020
on the file of the 1st respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent.
3.The case of the petitioner is that on 13.04.2020 at about 10.30
hours, the petitioner herein was wandering in the road by using his two
wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 75 U 6867 at the time of prohibition due to
COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, a case in Crime No.375 of 2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC has been
registered. The present petition is filed to quash the First Information
Report in Crime No.375 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 wandering in that area.
5.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
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
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 wandering 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 wandering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
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 wandering 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. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner got a
job in abroad and during the pendency of this case, he was not able to go
abroad for job. 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.375 of 2020 on the file of the 1st
respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.
9.In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 03.09.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
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,
Marthandam Police Station,
Kanyakumari 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.12780 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
mm
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12780 of 2021
03.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
