Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
KALPANA GUPTA@SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
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
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 proceedi....
Cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by a competent public servant; absence of this renders proceedings void. Knowledge or belief of infection is essential for culpability un....
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.
Cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act and IPC requires specific complaints and allegations that meet essential legal criteria; failure to comply renders the prosecution invalid.
A Magistrate cannot legally take cognizance of an offence under Section 269 of IPC if the primary offence under Section 188 and related charges are not actionable.
Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by a public servant; FIRs based solely on police reports are prohibited and rendered void.
The main legal point established is that charges under Sections 188, 269, and 270 IPC cannot be initiated without a written complaint as per Section 195 of CrPC, and the court has the inherent jurisd....
In view of aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that respondent/State is absolutely unjustified in registering first information report for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of Act of 1897....
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
