Madras High Court

M.V.Vasanthakumar vs The State Represented By on 20 April, 2022

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 20.04.2022

                                                       CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                               Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022
                                                         and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.5105 of 2022

                      M.V.Vasanthakumar,
                      S/o.Munirathinam Subrama Naidu                           ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs

                      1.The State Represented by,
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        RK Pet Police Station,
                        Tiruvallur District.
                        (Crime.No.415 of 2021)

                      2.Mr.Krishna Raj,
                        Sub-Inspector of Police,
                        RK Pet Police Station,
                        Tiruvallur district.                                ... Respondents



                      Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
                      Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings
                      as against the petitioner in Crime No.415 of 2021, pending on the file of the
                      first respondent.



                      1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

                                        For Petitioner      :    Mr.B.Pachaiyappan

                                        For Respondents     :    Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for the records

and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No.415 of

2021, pending on the file of the first respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the second respondent has suo

motu registered a case in Crime No.415 of 2021 against the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C read with Section 51 of

the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The allegation in the complaint

against the petitioner is that on 03.06.2021, when the Sub-Inspector of

Police, RK Pet Police Station, accompanied with two other policemen were

on patrol duty to see whether anyone was violating the Section 144 Cr.P.C

issued by the Central and State Government to prevent the spread of the

Corona, the petitioner was found roaming around and when the second

respondent had enquired the petitioner, he has not stated any reasons.

Based on the complaint given by the Sub-Inspector of Police, a case in

Crime No.415 of 2021 was registered for the offence punishable under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

Section 188 read with Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

only when the petitioner applied for passport seeking job in abroad, he came

to know that the case was pending against him before the respondents

police. He would further submit that due to the pendency of the case,

enquiry regarding issuance of the Passport is kept pending. He would

further submit that the respondent cannot straight away registered the case

under Section 188 of IPC and there is no material to show that the petitioner

had intentionally come out to spread infection to others.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further

submit that the Government has also issued orders directing the withdrawal

of cases registered during Covid-19 pandemic period and the withdrawal

cases have registered for violation of Covid-19 pandemic rules.

5. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

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.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent would submit that the petitioner was found loitering on

03.06.2021 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.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

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.

9. 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 respondents 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 and

thereby the offence under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act,

2005.

10. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

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."

11. Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is reproduced

below:-

"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.-

(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause-

(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8778 of 2022

(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

12. 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.8778 of 2022

13. Taking all these aspects into account, this Court is of the

considered view that the proceedings pending in Crime No.415 of 2021

dated 03.06.2021 on the file of the respondents is nothing but abuse of