Madras High Court
Balasubramani vs The State Rep By on 5 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
Balasubramani ... Petitioner
Vs
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Mathikonepalayam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, pleased to call for records relating to the Crime No.18 of 2020
pending on the file of the respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for records of FIR in
Crime No.138 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same.
2.The brief facts of the case is that the second respondent has registered a
case in Crime No.138 of 2020 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
188 and 269 of IPC. The allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner in
defiance of the promulgatory orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C pursuant
to Covid-19 pandemic had driven two wheeler on S.Kottavur bus stop and when
the respondent had enquired the petitioner, he has not stated any reasons.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner had come out of his house for purchase of medicines during Covid-19
pandemic period, whereas, the respondent has registered the case against him. He
would further submit that the respondent cannot straight away register the case
under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC and there is no material to show that the
petitioner had intentionally come out to spread infection to others. He would
further submit that the Government has also issued orders directing the withdrawal
of cases registered during Covid-19 pandemic period for violation of Covid-19
pandemic rules.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit
that the facts of the case are similar to the case covered in the decision reported in
2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others Vs The Inspector of Police
Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in
Sri Raja Vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
District and other in Crl.O.P(MD).No.7922 of 2019 etc batch dated 30.08.2019.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
would submit that the petitioner was found riding his motor cycle on 04.04.2020 at
10.20 a.m during Covid-19 pandemic/lockdown period, in defiance the Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Central and State Government. He
would further submit that the facts of this case are covered under the Judgment
referred to above.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
7. In the Judgment reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and
others Vs The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur
District] dated 20.09.2018, it has been held that the police has no right to file a
case under Section 188 of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
8.Further, there is no material to prove that the petitioner had knowingly
attempted to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life and 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 coming out during pandemic period will
spread the disease is without any basis.
9. Section 269 of IPC defines negligent act to spread infection as under:-
269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is,
and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread
the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine, or with both".
10. Considering the nature of allegations and the offence involved in this
case, this Court is of the opinion that coming out of the house during pandemic
period should not held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioner.
Unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the
future of the petitioner. Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
the Government is also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered
during the pandemic period against the public.
11. Taking all these aspects into account, this Court is of the considered
view that the proceedings pending in Crime No.138 of 2020 dated 04.04.2020 on
the file of the respondent, the Inspector of Police, Mathikonepalayam Police
Station, Dharmapuri District is nothing but abuse of process of law and is hereby
quashed. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
15.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
kmm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mathikonepalayam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J,
kmm
Crl.O.P.No7693 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.7693 of 2022
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
