R.Karthik vs The State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 8623 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8623 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2022

Madras High Court

R.Karthik vs The State Represented By on 25 April, 2022

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 25.04.2022

                                                           CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                                Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022

                      R.Karthik                                                ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                      The State Represented by
                      The Inspector of Police,
                      V-7 Nolambur Police Station,
                      Chennai - 604 307.                                       ... Respondent



                      Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
                      Procedure Code, pleased to call for records relating to Crime No.481 of
                      2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, V-7, Nolambur Police Station,
                      Chennai - 604 307 and quash the same.

                                   For Petitioner      :     Mr.K.Selvam
                                                             for M/s.Nathan and Associates

                                   For Respondent      :     Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor




                      1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022



                                                           ORDER

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

relating to Crime No.481 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, V-7,

Nolambur Police Station, Chennai - 604 307 and quash the same.

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

registered a case in Crime No.481 of 2020 against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC read with Section 3 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The allegation in the complaint against the

petitioner is that on 16.04.2020, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, V-7

Nolambur Police Station, Chennai accompanied with 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 near Vijaya Bank Junction and

when the 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.481 of 2020 was registered for the offence punishable

under Section 188 of IPC read with Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act,

1897.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022

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 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. He 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.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent would submit that the petitioner was found loitering on

16.04.2020 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 both sides and perused the materials available on record.

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.9249 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022

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."

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 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.481 of 2020

dated 16.04.2020 on the file of the respondent is nothing but abuse of

process of law and is hereby quashed. This Criminal Original Petition

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9249 of 2022