Uttarakhand High Court
Sudhakar Mishra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 February, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Sri Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
22nd February, 2024
Criminal Misc. Application No. 289 of 2024
Sudhakar Mishra
and others. ................Applicants.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and another. .........Respondents.
Present:
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the court made following
Judgment: (Per Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. By the instant application preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C., applicants are challenging the summoning order dated
15.10.2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 600 of 2020
(State Vs. Vinay Sikarwal and Others) pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal
whereby applicants were summoned to face the trial for the
offences punishable under Section 269 and 270 IPC.
2. As per the FIR, on 03.05.2020, the police intercepted three
cars and signalled them to stop. The applicants were sitting in
three cars. There were other persons also in those cars. The FIR
records that all the occupants of the cars had no mask. Only 9
persons were permitted to travel, but there were three more
persons in excess, in the cars. The FIR also records that it was
against the guidelines of COVID-19 pandemic, as it could have
further spread the disease. The FIR further reveals that the
applicants, at the relevant time, were going with Mr. Aman Mani
Tripathi, who was Member of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar
Pradesh, and he had taken permission for attending post death
rituals of the father of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Perusal of the record reveals that in this matter, after
investigation, Charge-sheet No.514 of 2020 was submitted under
Sections 188, 269, 270 and Sections 2 and 3 of the Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management
Act, 2005, but the court, on 15.10.2020, had taken cognizance only
under Sections 269 and 270 IPC.
3. By way of present C482 application proceedings of the case
are put to challenge. The record further reveals that on
15.10.2020, the court had also taken cognizance against one Jay
Prakash Tiwari in the case. Jay Prakash Tiwari had filed an
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.
1823 of 2022. The application was allowed by the Court on
14.11.2022. In Para Nos. 14 and 15 of the order dated 14.11.2022,
passed in C482 No. 1823 of 2022, the Court has observed as
follows:-
"14. In that eventuality, and the aspect which has been dealt
with by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matters of
Sidak Singh Sandhu (Supra) because when no action was
taken by the authorities as against the conduct or an act of the
negligence against whom the offence under section 269 of IPC,
is attempted to be drawn, the act of prosecution under section
269 of IPC and 270 of IPC, of the person without there being a
credible material before the authorities would be bad in the
eyes of law. As per the case at hand admittedly when the
vehicle was being apprehended, or even thereafter ever there
was no test conducted and there was no determination made
by the authorities that any of the passengers which were being
carried were infected by the Covid19 virus, and as such,
section 269 of IPC, would not be made out against the present
applicant.
15. As a consequence thereto, and for the reasons assigned
above, the C482 Application is allowed. The proceedings of the
Criminal Case No.600 of 2020, "State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Vinay Sikarwal and Others", pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, would hereby
stand quashed qua the present applicant only."
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants would
submit that the cognizance was taken in the case on 15.10.2020
against many persons. Jay Prakash Tiwari and Aman Mani
Tripathi had filed their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
which had already been allowed. He would further submit that
the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment
dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in C482 No. 1823 of 2022
and learned State Counsel has not disputed this fact.
5. In that application, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
relied on the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sidak Singh
Sandhu Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and another.
6. The case against the applicants is that though permission to
travel was granted for 9 persons in three cars, but there were 12
persons in those three cars, and they had no mask. It is admitted
that the applicants or any of the co-accused were not medically
tested for COVID-19 virus. In that background, this Court has
held that no prima facie case is made out against co-accused - Jay
Prakash Tiwari and Aman Mani Tripathi. Similar is the case of
the applicants. Therefore, this Court if of the view that the case of
the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment dated
14.11.2022 passed by this Court in C482 No. 1823 of 2022.
7. In view of the above, the application deserves to be
allowed. The C482 application is allowed. Proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 600 of 2020 (State Vs. Vinay Sikarwal and
Others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra
Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal for the offences punishable under
Section 269 and 270 IPC qua the applicants are hereby quashed.
__________________
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
22.02.2024
SKS
