Madras High Court
Chandru vs State Rep By on 11 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.4781 of 2022
Chandru ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore OT Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
Crime No.306 of 2021 ...Respondent
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR
in Crime No.306 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for records in
Crime No.306 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent has suo motu
registered a case in Crime No.306 of 2021 against the petitioner for the offence
under Sections 188 and 270 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 near Cuddalore
OT Tower Clock and when the respondent had enquired the petitioner, he has
not stated any reasons. Based on the complaint given by the Inspector of
Police, a case in Crime No.306 of 2021 was registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 188 and 270 of IPC.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
register the case under Sections 188 and 270 of IPC and there is no material to
show that the petitioner had intentionally come out of his house 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 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
30.05.2021 at 08.15 am 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
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 second respondent has no right to register the case and to investigate the
matter.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
9. Section 188 of IPC defines disobedience to order duly promulgated by
public servant to spread infection as under:-
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by Public
Servant:
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is
directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with
certain property in his possession or under his management,
disobeys such direction.
Shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance
or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to
human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or
affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
10. Section 270 of IPC defines malignant act likely to spread infection of
disease dangerous to life as under:-
"270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to
life:
Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which
he knows or has reason the 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 two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. 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 the Government is also going to drop all these cases, which have been
registered during the pandemic period against the public.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
12. Taking all these aspects into account, this Court is of the considered
view that the proceedings pending in Crime No.306 of 2021 dated 30.05.2021
on the file of the respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law and is
hereby quashed. This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently,
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
nr/lok
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore OT Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
nr/lok
Crl.O.P.No.8209 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.4781 of 2022
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
