Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Anil Kumar Rana - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 124 of 2025
Decided On : 25-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 188, 269, 270, 504 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner challenged FIR for violating quarantine protocols during COVID-19 - Allegations of not suffering from infectious disease and improper filing of FIR by informant - Court held FIR discloses cognizable offences and cannot be quashed - Limitation period for filing chargesheet excluded due to COVID-19 guidelines. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Principles - High Court may quash FIR if allegations do not constitute an offence or if there is a legal bar to proceedings - Court cannot assess truthfulness of allegations at this stage. (Paras 8-10)
(C) Competence of informant - Locus standi is not applicable in criminal law; anyone can initiate proceedings unless specified otherwise. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of violating quarantine orders after traveling to Himachal Pradesh, leading to the registration of an FIR by a medical officer. The petitioner claimed the FIR was invalid due to lack of infectious disease and improper filing.
Findings of Court:
The FIR disclosed cognizable offences, and the chargesheet was filed within the excluded limitation period due to COVID-19.
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed based on the informant's competence and the alleged lack of infectious disease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR disclosed prima facie commission of offences, and the High Court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations at the quashing stage.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR number 57 of 2020, dated 30th May 2020, registered at Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 188, 269 , 270 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and consequential proceedings bearing Police challan number 92 of 2021 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kangra, HP. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant, Dr Sanjay Bhardwaj, Block Medical Officer, made a complaint to the police stating that the petitioner/accused was directed to stay in Hotel River Retreat during quarantine. The petitioner/accused was found roaming outside the premises. The informant directed the petitioner to remain in the cottage where he was directed to remain during the quarantine. The petitioner refused to do so and started taking photographs of the informant with the help of his mobile phone. The petitioner violated the conditions of the quarantine. The police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and filing of the chargesheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the same. It has been asserted that the petitioner was not suffering from any infectious or contagious disease. The cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC is barred except upon a written complaint by the Officer whose order has been violated. The FIR was registered on 30th May 2020, and the final report was filed on 17th June 2021. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with simple imprisonment of one month, and the chargesheet was barred by limitation. The petitioner was put under quarantine as he travelled to the State of Himachal Pradesh from another State. The petitioner did not suffer from any illness, and he was in a fit state of health. The allegations contained in the FIR are wrong. The State Government has issued the guidelines regarding the registration of the FIR for violation of the protocols issued during the COVID-19 period, and only the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate is competent to lodge the FIR. The informant was a doctor and incompetent to file the complaint with the police. The State decided to close/cancel the FIR registered for the violation of the protocols during the COVID-19 period. The continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed.
4. I have heard Mr Sunil Kumar Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
5. Mr Sunil Kumar Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the informant was not competent to lodge the FIR because of the instructions issued by the State Government. The state government has decided to cancel the FIR lodged for the violation of the COVID-19 protocol. The petitioner did not suffer from any contagious or infectious disease, and the offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC are not made out. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and chargesheet be ordered to be quashed. He relied upon Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 737 , Ranjeet Kumar vs. State of HP CrMMO no. 648 of 2023 decided on 08.12.2023, Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat Cr.A. no. 1884 of 2013 decided on 28.08.2024 and K Bharathi Devi vs. State of Tela
The court affirmed that an FIR disclosing cognizable offences cannot be quashed based on the informant's competence or alleged lack of infectious disease, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in....
The court cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
The court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR at the quashing stage; it must determine if the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding.
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
The court held that an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash 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
