Cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint from a competent authority, and knowledge of infection is essential for Sections 269 and 270 IPC; lack of these elements renders proceedings unlawful.

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No.2200 of 2020 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, on the ground that the proceedings are without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory mandate, and amount to an abuse of the process of law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the Petitioners are as follows:

i. The present proceeding arises out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 607 of 2020 dated 20.08.2020, registered on the basis of an allegation that the petitioners violated containment zone restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ii. One resident of Malipada area tested positive for COVID-19, pursuant to which the District Magistrate & Collector, Jharsuguda declared Malipada and surrounding areas as a containment zone vide order dated 12.08.2020.

iii. The residential house of the petitioners fell within the declared containment zone, and the nasal swab sample of Petitioner No.1 was collected on 15.08.2020 for RT-PCR testing.The test result of Petitioner No.1 was declared COVID-19 positive on 20.08.2020 evening.

iv. The informant, who is the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, alleged that despite containment restrictions and sample collection, the petitioners continued to move outside the containment zone and attended court and other public places between 12.08.2020 and 20.08.2020.

v. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who submitted Final Form against the petitioners.

vi. By order dated 16.11.2020, the learned SDJM, Jharsuguda took cognizance of offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The petitioners contend that the cognizance order has been passed mechanically, without independent application of judicial mind, solely relying upon the Final Form submitted by the Investigating Officer.

ii. It is asserted that cognizance under Section 188 IPC is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., as no written complaint was filed by the competent public servant before the Magistrate.

iii. The petitioners argue that no offence under Sections 269 and 270 IPC is made out since the essential ingredient of “knowledge” or “reason to believe” regarding infection was absent prior to 20.08.2020.

iv. It is contended that the FIR itself was lodged immediately after receipt of the test result and there is no allegation of exposure to public places after confirmation of COVID-19 positivity.

v. The petitioners submit that investigation under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is statutorily barred as it was conducted by an officer below the rank of Inspector, contrary to Section 3A(ii) of the Act.

vi. Reliance is placed on a subsequent RT-PCR test report dated 21.08.2020 showing Petitioner No.1 as COVID-19 negative, casting doubt on the prosecution’s a