Hariharan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 6129 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6129 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Hariharan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 25 March, 2022

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                                CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                                     Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022

                      Hariharan,
                      S/o.Ravi                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                                  Vs

                      The Sub Inspector of Police,
                      K-11, CMBT Police Station,
                      Chennai.                                                      ... Respondent

                      Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
                      Procedure Code, pleased to call for records in Crime No.229 of 2020 on the
                      file of the respondent and quash the same.

                                        For Petitioner      :     Mr.K.Thenrajan

                                        For Respondent      :     Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                                ORDER

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

Crime No.229 of 2020 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022

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

registered a case in Crime No.229 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 06.04.2020, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, CMBT

Police Station, Chennai 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 in Koyambedu 100 Feet

Road, Games Village area 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.229 of 2020 was registered

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

the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

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

the petitioner had come out of his house for purchase of vegetables during

Covid-19 pandemic period, whereas, the respondent has registered the case

against him. He would further submit that the respondent cannot straight

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022

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 petitioner has completed his graduation of B.E (Civil

Engineering) and he also applied for passport. 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.

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

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.6754 of 2022

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent would submit that the petitioner was found riding his motor

cycle on 06.04.2020 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.

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

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.6754 of 2022

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 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.

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 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;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022

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. 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.

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

considered view that the proceedings pending in Crime No.229 of 2020

dated 06.06.2020 on the file of the respondent is nothing but abuse of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2022