Ritesh Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 357 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ritesh Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 13 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No.224 of 2024
Ritesh Yadav                                        .........Applicant

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                      .........Respondents

                                   With

            Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2024
Sanjay Kumar Singh                                   .........Applicant

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                      .........Respondents

Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Sweta B. Dobhal, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since the subject matter of both these petitions is one and the same, the proceedings pending before the court below have also been challenged in both these petitions, hence, these are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these petitions is made to FIR No.0055 of 2020, Police Station Muni Ki Reti, Tehri Garhwal, charge-sheet No.514 of 2020, dated 14.09.2020; the summoning/cognizance order dated 15.10.2020, passed in Criminal Case No.600 of 2020, State Vs. Vinay Sikarwal and Others, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case"), as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. According to the FIR, on 03.05.2020, the police intercepted three cars and signalled them to stop. The petitioner was one of the occupants in one of the cars. There were other persons also in those cars. The FIR records that all the occupants of the cars had no mask. 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 itself records that the petitioner, at the relevant time, 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.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that in this matter, after investigation, Chargesheet No.55 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. The proceedings of the case are put to challenge.

6. 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 a petition under Section 482 of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2022 ("the first petition"). The first petition was allowed by the Court on 14.11.2022.

7. Another accused-Aman Mani Tripathi also

preferred C482 application No.2693 of 2023, which was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.12.2023, whereby, the entire proceedings of the case were quashed. Since the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the entire proceedings of the case in earlier C482 petitions referred hereinabove, the subject matter of the present petition being same, this Court does not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid orders. Accordingly, both these C482 applications are also allowed.

8. The summoning order dated 15.10.2020, charge- sheet No.514 of 2020 dated 14.09.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.600 of 2020, State vs. Vinay Sikarwal and others, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal are hereby quashed qua the applicants only.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.05.2025 Ravi