The court emphasized the need for a simpler procedure in dealing with petty offences and criticized the delay in disposing of cases related to violation of orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P. C.') for quashing of FIR No. 510/2021, registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), at Police Station Preet Vihar, New Delhi.

2. The FIR records that on 30th December, 2021 at about 20:50 hrs., during patrolling, the beat patrol party of Head Constable Om Singh and Constable Omveer, found the shop/showroom, namely, 'Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd.' being run on the Ground Floor of F-21, Preet Vihar open with 8-10 people standing near the reception. Since the person in-charge ignored the instructions of the Head Constable that the closing time for shops in Delhi was 8 PM in view of the Covid-19 notification, the petitioner who failed to close the showroom was proceeded against, for having violated the said Covid-19 notification and a case under Section 188 IPC was made out against it.

3. Mr. Suhail Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner without the written complaint of the Competent Authority, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in the present case. Relying on the judgments of (i) Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 812, (ii) Saloni Arora Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 3 SCC 286 (iii) Bajranglal Parikh & Ors. Vs. State of Assam 2008 SCC OnLine Gau 362 (iv) Gurinder Singh Vs. State, 1996 SCC OnLine Del 31, (v) Apurva Ghiya v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 454 (vi) Sushil Sharma v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7655 and (vii) Mohan Kukreja Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6398, it was submitted that the FIR having been improperly registered ought to be quashed. It was submitted that the quashing was necessitated as the police were summoning the petitioner, unlawfully under Section 41A Cr.P.C..

4. Mr. Karan Dhalla, learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, submitted that the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been obtained from ACP, Preet Vihar and that when the charge-sheet is filed, that would also be placed on the record. It was further submitted that since the violation of the Covid-19 norms was a cognizable offence, the police were entitled to take cognizance of the commission of the offence and register the FIR. Law proscribed the taking of cognizance by the court without a complaint of the public servant, but not the submission of a charge-sheet including such a complaint.

5. I have heard the submissions and have perused the record.

6. It may be useful to reproduce the provisions of law for ready reference. Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under:

'195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) xxx xxx xxx' (emphasis added)

7. The argument urged before this Court is that in the absence of a complaint by the ACP, who had issued the order governing the opening and shutting of shops, showrooms, etc., not even an FIR could be registered. But this submission confuses the powers of the police with those vested in the court. An offence under Section 188 IPC has been described in the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C. as 'cognizable and bailable offence'. 'Cognizable offence' has been defined under Section 2(c) Cr.P.C., as an offence for which a police officer could arrest without warrant. In other words, a 'cognizable offence' is one in relation to whic