Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
Sarmad Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of fir and relevant guidelines (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. retrospectivity of guidelines and its implications (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. quashing of fir and conclusion of the petition (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of charge-sheet dated 2nd April, 2021 filed by the respondent/State in FIR No.102/2020 dated 7th April, 2020 registered at PS Madhu Vihar, District East, New Delhi for offences punishable under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.
2. Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is to the invocation of the quarantine order retrospectively and on the basis of an alleged violation based on the phone call detail of the petitioner, the above noted FIR stood registered and a charge-sheet filed.
3. Briefly the facts resulting in registration of the FIR No.102/2020 are that the petitioner left India for France on 19th October, 2019 and returned back to India on 5th February, 2020. When the petitioner returned back to India no orders directing mandatory institutional/home quarantine were in force. On 30th January, 2020, WHO declared Covid-19 as a public h
Restrictions related to quarantine cannot be imposed retrospectively, as established by the court; guidelines inapplicable to individuals returning before the effective date.
Point of Law : It is well settled that a restriction cannot be imposed retrospectively.
The main legal point established is that a restriction cannot be imposed retrospectively, and in the absence of evidence of a quarantine directive, the petitioner's actions did not constitute a viola....
The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and intent behind alleged violations, the necessity of a valid complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the impact of ....
FIR for pandemic restriction violations under IPC Sections 269, 270, 188 quashed due to non-compliance with CrPC Section 195 requiring written public servant complaint, insufficient evidence, no infe....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with legal provisions, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the need for proper service through the Emb....
The court's inherent power under section 482 CrPC requires cautious examination and should not be exercised to scuttle proceedings or short circuit the trial based on allegations in the FIR.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
