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 infection spread, and government directive to withdraw cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.48 of 2020, dated 20.04.2020, under Sections 269, 270, 188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 51(A) of Disaster Management Act, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.39/2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kulwinder Kaur, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted against the petitioner on the precise allegation that on 24.04.2020, Police received written rukka against the petitioner, alleging therein that in violation of restrictions imposed by the Government on account of Covid-19, she travelled from Punjab to her in-laws at Kandrodi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. After receipt of aforesaid communication, police conducted investigation and found that on 09.04.2020, petitioner along with her brother-in-law Pawan Kumar and her son travelled from Punjab to her in-laws at Kandrodi, as a result thereof, residents of Village Kandrodi came under threat of Corona infection. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner.

3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the petitioner, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though District Magistrate, Kangra, had issued curfew order dated 24.03.2020, but petitioner had gone to her maternal house, a day prior to the issuance of curfew order. After residing about 16 days in her maternal house, she returned back to her in-laws on 09.04.2020 by which date, curfew order dated 24.03.2020 stood withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per statements of the then Secretary Gram Panchayat Toki (Plumber Dass) as well as Ms. Anuradha Kumari, (ASHA Worker), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, factum with regard to arrival of the petitioner in afore Gram Panchayat came to their knowledge on 20.04.2020 and as per directions of SDM/BDO, the petitioner was quarantined for a period of 28 days in her home. During this period, neither the petitioner nor her son was found to be infected with the corona virus. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that since curfew order dated 24.03.2020 was not within the knowledge of general public of the concerned area under PS Damtal and same was handed over to the police on 21.06.2020 by the office of PS Indora as has been stated by Sh. Somraj (Reader) of SDM, Indora and thereafter, matter with regard to violation of Covid-19 restrictions, if any, at the behest of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the local administration after her having been quarantined for a period of 28 days, there was otherwise no occasion to lodge FIR. Lastly, learned counsel for t