Cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act requires specific allegations and compliance with procedural requirements, which were absent in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report being Kanke P.S. Case No.141 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.43 of 2022 and also the order taking cognizance dated 05.01.2022 in connection with the said case, in which after submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.06.2021, the petitioner being the State President of Bhartiya Janta Party and an Hon’ble Member of the Rajya Sabha, was leading an agitation opposing the farmers along with the co-accused Member of Legislative Assembly of Kanke Legislative Assembly Constituency, in presence of 75-80 persons, who took part in the protest. They did not maintain the social distance and some persons were not putting on the mask. As the possibility of spread of CORONA Epidemic could not be ruled out by such acts of the petitioner, hence, the Circle Officer-cum-Magistrate, Kanke Circle, Ranchi submitted a written-report to the Officer-In-Charge of Kanke Police Station and basing upon the same, Kanke P.S. Case No.141 of 2021 was registered. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Consequent upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Singh Dugal @ Rajeev Duggal passed in Cr.M.P. No.2313 of 2022 and submits that this Court in that case relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Sakuja vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 dated 13.05.2024 paragraphs-10 and 11 of which read as under:-

“10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, in view of Section 60 of the said Act, certainly the court ought not have taken cognizance except on a complaint made by the authority/officer concerned, who has been authorized under Section 60 of the said Act, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment, to make such complaint. Otherwise also, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner refused to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government or Executive Committee or Disaster Authority under the Act, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is not made out.

11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences for which penalty has been provided for in Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; as there is no allegation against the petitioner of disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 nor there is any allegation of any violation having committed against a Health Care Service Personnel or damage or loss to any property having been caused. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in