Telangana High Court

Gurram Venkat Ramana vs The State Of Telangana on 3 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.8550 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in

C.C.No.683 of 2020 on the file of the learned Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda,

Nalgonda District, registered for the offence punishable under

Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-

Police registered the case in Crime No.109 of 2020 against the

petitioner and other accused stating that as per the

instructions of his superiors, he along with his staff performed

patrolling duty from Chinthapally to Kurmded X Road. He

further stated that at Viratnagar, the petitioner and other

accused gathered at one place by violating the Covid -19 rules

issued by the Government and burnt the scare crow. After

completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet, vide

C.C.No.683 of 2020, before the learned Junior Civil Judge-

cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda,

SKS,J

Nalgonda District for the offence punishable under Section

269 of IPC.

3. Heard Sri Gouravulu Anil Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as E. Ganesh,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

registration of the FIR is bad as the essential ingredients for

the offence under Section 269 of IPC is not made out from

perusal of the FIR as well as the final report and the

proceedings have not been filed as per the procedure

prescribed in law. He further submitted that referring to the

provision of code of Criminal Procedure and the final report

under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel has pointed out

that there is no document or investigation to substantiate that

the petitioner was suffering from any communicable disease

and as such, the petitioner could not have spread the infection

of any disease that may be labelled as dangerous to life.

Consequently, offence under Section 269 IPC is not made out.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner.

SKS,J

5. In support of submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench

of the Bombay High Court in HLA SHWE vs. State of

Maharashtra 1 , wherein in paragraph No.14, it is held as

follows:

"14. To attract ingredients of Sections 269 and 270, the person must commit any act which he knows is likely to spread infection of any disease which is dangerous to life. It is not in dispute that the applicants had undergone Covid-19 test during their period of quarantine i.e., from 03.04.2020 and their test report for infection of Covid - 19 was negative. It is also not disputed that they were kept in isolation from 24.03.2020 till 31.03.2020 under the supervision of Dr. Khawaj, NMC Zonal Officer, Mominpura, Nagpur. There is no material on record to prove that applicants had indulged in any act which was likely to spread infection of Covid - 19. Therefore, from the material produced in the charge- sheet, there is no evidence to substantiate the fulfillment of ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon

the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Criminal Application No.453 of 2020 decided on 21.09.2020

SKS,J

Chandigarh in Pawan Giri and others vs. State of Haryana 2,

wherein in paragraph Nos.10 and 14, it is held as follows:

"10. A perusal of Section 269 IPC shows that in order to attract the same, the act of an accused must be one which is likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life. A perusal of the report filed by respondent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. does not indicate any prima- facie evidence collected by the Police as to whether the petitioner or the other members of the family were suffering from any infectious disease or would have caused spread of any infectious disease. In the absence thereof, it cannot be assumed that the petitioners were either the carriers of infection or would have caused spread thereof. Apart there from, the report also does not indicate the exact guideline purportedly alleged to have been violated. In the absence of any such specific guidelines which is alleged to have been violated, there is no presumption that the act of the petitioners was unlawful. Further, perusal of the notification dated 01.04.2020 shows that the said notification was in the nature of a prohibition imposed upon the shops selling medicines and was not against other person. Hence, the action of the petitioners in seeking procurement of essential medicines during the permissible hours of operation cannot be held to be unlawful. In the absence of the respondents to refer to any order, the disobedience whereof is sought to be alleged against the petitioners, it cannot be perceived that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 269 IPC.

CRM-M-51595 of 2021

SKS,J

14. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the matter of "Basir-ul-haq versus State of Punjab" reported as AIR 1953 SC 293, the prosecuting agency cannot be permitted to evade the application of Section 195 by resorting to devices or camouflages. The test as to whether there is any evasion or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the public servant is required. The prosecuting agency thus cannot take aid of Section 269 IPC to justify filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. especially when the essential ingredients of Section 269 IPC are not made out from the final report."

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the case is of the year 2020 and the allegations

against the petitioner, requires trial. Therefore, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the

main allegation against the petitioner is that he violated the

Covid - 19 rules issued by the Government and burnt the

scare crow, as such, respondent No.2 registered the case

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section

269 of IPC. At this stage, it is significant to note Section 269

of IPC, which reads as follows:

SKS,J

"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."

9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand and a perusal

of the aforementioned rulings, in order to attract Section 269

of IPC, the act of the petitioner must be one which is likely to

spread infection of any disease dangerous to life. A perusal of

the report filed by respondent No.2 under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

does not indicate any prima facie evidence collected by the

Police as to whether the petitioner or the other co-accused and

their family members were suffering from any infectious

disease or would have caused spread of any infectious disease.

In the absence thereof, it cannot be assumed that the

petitioners were either the carriers of infection or would have

caused spread thereof. That apart, the report also does not

indicate the exact guideline purportedly alleged to have been

violated. In the absence of any such specific guidelines which

is alleged to have been violated, it cannot be presumed that

the act of the petitioners was unlawful. Therefore, the

allegations against the petitioner for the offence under Section