Telangana High Court

Sri Nadiri Satyanarayana Alias Satyam vs The State Of Telangana on 21 September, 2024

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.11276 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the

BNSS') to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 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

petitioners 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 petitioners 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,

Nalgonda District for the offence punishable under Section

269 of IPC.

3. Heard Sri Gouravulu Anil Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Arun

Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners were suffering from any communicable disease

and as such, the petitioners 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 petitioners.

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

petitioners, 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 petitioners further relied upon

the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Criminal Application No.453 of 2020 decided on 21.09.2020

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

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 Additional Public Prosecutor

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

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

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

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

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

allegation against the petitioners is that they violated the

Covid - 19 rules issued by the Government and burnt the

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

against the petitioners 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:

"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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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